Several New Observations Confirm Memos Were Typed

[deckerd]

1. In the "It's Elementary" thread, a link was posted to a new
typographical study by a forensic researcher. This study, unlike
challenges to the document's authenticity, was done in sufficient
amount of time (over the past two weeks) to come to a forensically
valid conclusion based upon sound scientific methods. The article
also confirms that Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post issued false
information about the content of the memos:

Forensic Researcher Determines Evidence Memos Were Typed, Even if Fake;
Questions Post Inference From Typography to Support Forgery Conclusion

2. RW bloggers have raised $10,000 to reward anybody who can
reproduce the memos exactly on a typewriter of ANG vintage.
The following was done on a computer using a vintage TYPEWRITER
proportional font unavailable on MS Word. Note that the spacing
of the font is very similar to that of Times New Roman,
explaining its surface similarity to the Buckhead MS Word reproduction:

Near-Exact Reproduction using Font "Typewriter (Condensed)"

3. This reproduction, while MORE exact than that of MS Word, is STILL inexact,
in part because it WAS done on a word processor unable to duplicate
the jumpy letters best exemplified in "the word "Interceptor" at top.

Over a week ago, a blogger named "Retired_Military" stated that he was an admin
in the services at the time, that in his professional opinion the documents WERE typed
by Killian, in an effort not to implicate Knox, on the following manner,

on an IBM EXECITIVE using the font face DELEGATE.

Assuming Delegate is an early proportional variant of the Typewriter family of fonts, which includes the standard "Courier" at one end of the development spectrum (monospaced, flag serifs, flat characters) and the proportional "Typewriter (Condensed)" at the other (proportional, flag serifs, curly characters) at the other:

This may explain why "Typewriter (Condensed)" is near-perfect but inexact, since it would post-date Delegate in the hystory of IBM proportional font development (all of which was done for the TYPESETTING PROFESSION, mind you, prior to the development of the Windows family of Programs).

It remains to be seen whether the docs were produced in this manner; I suggest it would be a good investment on the part of Mr. Hailey and/or on the part of DU given the presence of the $10,000 offer, and I suggest someone purchase a vintage Executive. Too many right wingers are assuming that typewriters are no longer used and no longer exist.

3. The image above demonstrates that the letterhead WERE NOT exactly centered,
an artifact which Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Kurtz correctly stated
would constitute proof that the documents were forged on a computer.

I strongly encourage DU researchers to look at the original CBS
documents and look at the RW exposes to determine what margins
Buckhead, Greenberg et al. used to determine proof of centering
by a computer, given the absence of scale and left-right page delimitations.
They may have simply cut and pasted (overlaid) the centered text
irrespective of its positioning relative to the body text in MS Word.

Any evidence of "true" centering by a Word Processor is serious and proves
that the docs were at minimum, tampered with on a computer; especially
considering that the docs were not written by an experienced typist. Knox's
testimony, the exactitude of the spelling coupled with the grammatical and
punctuation mistakes all point to a hunt and peck typist.
(I should know; I am one and I do not make spelling errors as a result,
but frequently other sorts of errors.)

If such evidence of "true" centering can be found in ANY of the four memos,
it is imperative that the researcher (Mr. Hailey or here on DU)
verify that the POINT SIZE is the same as the point size found in the body of the text.

Why, you ask? I do not have the cite for this, but it is my impression
based on one of the docs (possibly the one used as evidence of centering)
that the point size of the letterhead was different, leading me to conclude
(a) that the letterheads were done up in a batch by an experienced
secretary skilled at centering, a common secretarial approach; or
(b) which I regard as more likely, that the letterheads were pasted on
top of the original document.

Why do I believe this, you ask? First, their style does not match that which a secretary would have used, nor Killian, since he would not have been sufficiently skilled at centering on a typewriter. Neither am I-- it's damn hard. Second, my distinct impression was that the point sizes were different from the body text on one of the memos, but this could be a trick of the eye.

Thirdly and more importantly, the only thing inaccurate about the style and content of the memos to suggest forgery is the letterhead; the reference to "Lt." is a stylistic punctuation error; the reference to "billets" is corroborated by the presence of "billeting offices" in the Air National Guard, suggesting the terminology has evolved, as have the rules for, e.g. eligibility for the AFOUA ribbon which some have incorrectly cited against Bush based on unambiguous current regs.

The reference to Staudt raises no eyebrows amongst anyone familiar with retired military responsibilities. (Retired_Military addresses this in his blog posts, which I have unfortunately no link; he was called upon years after retirement to assist an officer's promotion by rescuing the officer's review records from Retired_Mil's personal or P-file, the originals of which had been lost in the mail.)

In short, given evidence that most of the memos were typed on a typewriter,
the stylistic and (to my eye) mechanical differences in the point size
and/or boldness of the letterhead suggests that the memos were not
forged
but tampered with. The letterheads may be the only part of the memos not, in fact,
typed by Killian, if so, the reason for selective tampering is simple:

Because the original letterheads would have contained information verifying the documents.

This is a serious determination that needs to be looked into, because
it tells us, assuming the documents were forged, HOW they were forged
and if any part of the memos is genuine. This is a forensic question.

4. Additional evidence from the following example of tyewritten doc
illustrates, for the uninformed, why the experts relied upon by the
Washington Post are insufficiently informed about typesetting to be
relied upon by any credible journalist. It depicts an example of "genuine"
superscript in which Mr. Hailey, decades ago, used a common letter "o" as a degree symbol,
placing it a half-step above the line of text:

First, let me quote Mr. Hailey:

"Figure 4. Washington Post analysis of criticisms advanced by “document experts.” Their criticism is that the type is proportional, the superscript “th” is consistent with word processing software and not consistent with mechanical technologies of the time. Some experts are certain that the font used is Times New Roman, probably unavailable on typewriters at the time, and certainly not used by the military at the time.

The critical arguments of the above document experts are both spurious and uninformed."

To be precise, the infamous Mr. Greenberg (http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm)
stated as the foundation for the whole forgery angle that the
special character "th", despite being a special character widely used
in the military, was not "true superscript" unless placed above
the top line of the text. This counter-example (in which the letter "o"
is used as a degree symbol) illustrates how Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Dobbs and
Mr. Kurtz impeached their own credibility by reliance on this idiotic assertion
that superscript positioning was a function inherent in the typewriting mechanism.

I have e-mailed the Post Ombudsman repeatedly on this, asking for
a correction on this and the absence of (pseudo-)"kerning" (cited
by Greenberg and Kurtz et al. as proof of MS Word) in hi-res images
provided by CBS. No correction has been issued.

5. MacDougald (an associate of Roger Stone) confirms he is Buckhead,
refuses to answer questions about the provenance of his findings that
the documents were forged:

DU Thread link

[grasswire]

1. thanks for your bulldogging this matter

I hate the fact that it has already slipped into the memory hole, largely, with the wrong conclusion left in the minds of the American people.

[starroute]

2. Thank you for continuing to push this

However, the links you give don't work. These should:

http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/index.htm