'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-09 10:36pm

I've read a few posts on some blogs, taking screen caps of similar Word documents and comparing them. They look very similar, but the screen caps all have anti-aliasing turned on for the fonts.

If this was created in Word, then it would seem to me that anti-aliasing was turned off. I'll run a little experiment with that ... more later.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2004-09-09 10:36pm

tharkûn wrote:Look there is a simple way to prove that it is possible for a typewriter from that date to have proportional characters and the needed characters - show an example of one that DOES. Rather than pissing that people can't be lazy or stupid, why not offer physical proof that the document could have been produced?

Why don't you go read your own quotes from above, where your expert says that it was possible.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-09 10:43pm

Why don't you go read your own quotes from above, where your expert says that it was possible.

Which quote would that be? My only quote is from a typewriter collector, of the models Durandel specifically named as being able to produce the documents. He noted that the only device which had the features was not for administrative use.

Why is it so hard to beleive a dumbass forged them? Hell if you insist on the forger knowing his ass from his elbow, do you think forgeries might not have been deliberately planted?

When the family and recognized experts say it most likely was a forgery, some going so far as to duplicate it - then it most likely is a forgery.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2004-09-09 10:50pm

tharkûn wrote:Which quote would that be? My only quote is from a typewriter collector, of the models Durandel specifically named as being able to produce the documents. He noted that the only device which had the features was not for administrative use.

Did you not even read where Dr. Bouffard was quoted? He specifically states that it's possible that the document is genuine.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-09-09 10:54pm

Durandal wrote:If this was created in Word, then it would seem to me that anti-aliasing was turned off. I'll run a little experiment with that ... more later.

I might try my hand at it myself.
If you do it, can I make a suggestion? Print it and scan it in as a fax.

Also, PO Box 34567?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-09 10:56pm

Did you not even read where Dr. Bouffard was quoted? He specifically states that it's possible that the document is genuine.

Does my name look like Alex Moon to you? No I didn't read Alex Moon's post, it wasn't on the server when I clicked reply. Even there Durandel's claim that they would have been routinely typed on a selectric II seems to be refuted.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-09-09 10:59pm

I don't know if that's AA, actually. PDF's normal compression can do strange things to images (possibly an artifact of its print -> screen resolution downscaling).

I have a high-res laser printer, I'll see how it looks.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-09 11:06pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:
Durandal wrote:If this was created in Word, then it would seem to me that anti-aliasing was turned off. I'll run a little experiment with that ... more later.
I might try my hand at it myself.
If you do it, can I make a suggestion? Print it and scan it in as a fax.

I couldn't manage to duplicate the spacing in Word 2004 for OS X with Times New Roman 12 pt. Then again, that might be because Word 2004 uses ATSUI for its fonts (Apple Type Services for Unicode). And 2004 doesn't let me turn off Quartz antialiasing, either.

However, Times New Roman on my copy of Word definitely looks different from what's on that document. And my copy of Word puts the superscript's upper edge in line with the preceding letters'. In the memo, it appears way above.

Also, PO Box 34567?

Yeah I noticed that too as I was retyping it.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-09-09 11:09pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
tharkûn wrote:Which quote would that be? My only quote is from a typewriter collector, of the models Durandel specifically named as being able to produce the documents. He noted that the only device which had the features was not for administrative use.
Did you not even read where Dr. Bouffard was quoted? He specifically states that it's possible that the document is genuine.

He gave it only a 10% chance of being genuine.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-09-09 11:14pm

The spacing matches up almost exactly using Times New Roman in 14 pt. However, like Durandal notes, the "th" is higher in the memo than what currently appears on my Word screen.

If this is a fake produced in Word, what would cause this discrepency? Is it an effect from scanning/photocopying and then importing into pdf format?

Phongn?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-09-09 11:22pm

The font doesn't appear to be TNR, but it could be a related variant of it (being one of the most copied fonts in the entire world). I can't tell if it was a screenshot or not because the PDF compression cut out too much detail and introduced too many artifacts. Maybe if I had the original PNG or TIFF I could tell better. There's also the fact that it appears to be a screen-resolution image and not a print-resolution one which compounds the problem.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-09 11:24pm

WaPo covers the issue

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-09 11:37pm

Another great example of the Liberal Media in action, folks. Jesus H. Christ, I don't know how that fucking stupid idea survives in the face of so much evidence against it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-09 11:38pm

The easiest thing to do would be to carbon-date the paper and ink.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-09-10 12:00am

Durandal wrote:The easiest thing to do would be to carbon-date the paper and ink.

Um... Radio carbon dating works on that short of time scales?

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-09-10 12:04am

Ok, here is my quick version of the doc. I forget to fix the autoformatting of the "st" so that line will not match exactly. I may have been mistaken about what I said abou the "th" difference earlier... anyway, take a look.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-10 12:08am

I call Bullshit in this article. I know for a fact that superscript could be done in the 70's. How do you know? you may ask..Because at work we have typwriters of this era that can do just that.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-10 12:11am

Stuart Mackey wrote:I call Bullshit in this article. I know for a fact that superscript could be done in the 70's. How do you know? you may ask..Because at work we have typwriters of this era that can do just that.

No one said it couldn't be done. It was stated that is was very uncommon.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-10 12:15am

Exactly, I was using a 1970's era surplus type writter my whole time as an emergency services office worker....

really funny when they would send us software to use, and we couldn't because the stuff the gave us was totally obsolete...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-10 12:19am

Talon Karrde wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:I call Bullshit in this article. I know for a fact that superscript could be done in the 70's. How do you know? you may ask..Because at work we have typwriters of this era that can do just that.
No one said it couldn't be done. It was stated that is was very uncommon.

Ahh..indeed. Uncommon it is but being uncommon also means it could be the real McCoy {dammnit, I am a Doctor not a fruit drink!}. The question is did the author of the document have access and use the machine that could do it?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-10 12:40am

Phil, I superimposed yours over the original.

I gauged it by matching the 1's in the header as best I could. The scaling seems pretty good, to me.

Phil's is blue; the original is red. Take from this what you will.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-09-10 12:41am

IBM Archives: 1941 wrote:IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

Source

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-09-10 12:43am

Would a mod kindly fix my quotes tag, please?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-10 12:43am

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Would a mod kindly fix my quotes tag, please?

Done.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-10 12:45am

Durandal wrote:Phil, I superimposed yours over the original.

I gauged it by matching the 1's in the header as best I could. The scaling seems pretty good, to me.

Phil's is blue; the original is red. Take from this what you will.

Nice job. Interesting, though perhaps unconclusive. They do look strikingly similar, but probably not proof of any wrongdoing.