'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

[Broomstick]

And the fact that he would have been signing his name over the same format signature block through most of his career, means that he wouldn't know how to make it? The fact that it looks wrong would mean that he would probably have fixed it. Given that the Col. Killian was a pilot, attention to detail is a requirement, and since he reached the rank of Lt. Col., he obviously succeeded at practicing it. And since Lt. Col. rank takes around 12 years(possibly more), he should know what format everything should be in.

Couple of points here:

1) People who do a lot of name signing seldom look hard at their signature block. I've seen executives sign their name to 50 letters before realizing the new secretary has screwed up. Back in the day (and even now) it was the secretary who was the formatting expert - if she (or in the military, frequently a "he") wasn't around you got something approximately right to a quick glance, but incorrect by the rules.

2) Yes, being a pilot requires attention to detail - when flying. It does not necessarially follow that equal attention to detail will be paid to other aspect of the pilot's life.

3) Time in service would not equate to skill in typing and adhering to format in communications. Prior to word processors, typing was a skill. All that spell checking, spacing, and other stuff word processers do for you automatically had to be done by human brains and hands. Hence, "typist" used to be a profession rather than an activity everyone did. Back in those days, standard procedure was to either dictate or scrawl by hand on paper the content of a message and give it to the secretary, who would then render it in proper, typed format. So, if he wasn't a "typist" he would have no experience in rendering things in "proper" format, would have to go by memory on details he probably never paid a lot of attention to, and would get something not unlike what we see in these documents.

And you're claiming that someone who doesn't really know how to type would go and try typing something on what is a more complex machine, when there is another less complex machine available. And someone who is a hunt and peck typist would go and use all the complex features on that machine like superscripted th, or smart quotes(if such a thing existed).

The machines were more complex on the inside - actual USE of these machines was only marginally more difficult than any other typewriter.

Now, if the "th" was normal size characters superscripted THAT I would find more odd - there is a way to do that, but it would be unlikely to occur to a non-typist and without practice the results usually didn't look at all good. But if there was a "th" KEY on the typewriter keyboard then it would just be a matter of hitting that key once, just like any other key, and it might look attractive to a hunt-and-pecker to hit one key with "th" vs. hitting "t" and "h" separately.

Also, we aren't talking about "smart quotes" - it's a curled apostrophe. On such a typewriter it would be the ONLY choice for apostrophe, and it would be achieved by the remarkable feat of just pressing the apostrophe key.

So really, if he had a higher-end IBM or other equally sophisticated machine he may have been unaware of how "special" it was, because to a non-typist they didn't look that different to the eye. Some extremely high end machines had some extra levers and keys that might have bothered non-typists, but there were plenty of machines out there that looked like perfectly normal typewriters that had some really cool features that could be used by the experts, and stumbled on by H&P typers

As to how I learned all this - when I was young and had visions of being an artist I thought having a fall-back skill to avoid being a starving artist would be a good idea. I settled on typing because it wasn't that difficult to learn and I figured we'd always need them so I could always get a job doing it to pay the rent (which has, in fact, been the case).

[Broomstick]

As far as centering the headings - no, typewriters can't do that. That's why you learn to do it as a human being in Typing 101!

How does one manually center proportionatly spaced fonts? And could a "hunt and peck" typist reasonably be expected to do it? (Honest question, I've never worked with a typewriter).

Ah, memories...

First of all, it wasn't that uncommon to prepare ahead of a time sheets of paper with centered headers because it did take some time to set these up. Remember - this was before photocopiers were common, too. If a header was really commonly used a company would have it printed on reams of paper, but sometimes in offices the secretary would spend a certain amount of time just banging out something like "Memorandum" centered on the top of the page for a dozen or three sheets so they would be readily at hand when needed. I still have a notebook around here somewhere (I am such a packrat!) with notes about how many letters and spaces where in commonly used headers so when I was working as an office temp I wouldn't have to re-invent the wheel when asked to do things like this. So, if there was a bunch of such sheets on the desk he could have just snagged one and there you go.

As to how you do manual centering:

1) Determine the center of the sheet of paper. If you were in a hurry you could do this by folding the paper in half (of course, that usually left an unattractive crease) but more commonly one would use a ruler, a piece of wood or plastic typically 12 or 18 inches long with inches and fractions of an inch indicated by markings along the side. Also common to find highly sophisticated models with inches on one side and centimeters on the other. Anyhow, you would use the "ruler" to measure the center of the paper and mark it lightly with a pencil.

As an additional aid, most typewriters had a ruler built into the paper feed, on the back of the whatsit that held the "roller thing" that fed the paper or on the bar that held the paper down and in position. With practice, you could load the paper and use that ruler to determine center.

2) Figue out what your header will be. If you have a multi-line header you'll need to repeat this operation for each line. Count up the characters in the header and divide by 2. Remember this number.

3) Determine your starting point. There were two ways to do this. You could go to the centerpoint and then backspace using the number you determined in step #2. Or, if you knew the character length of the typewriter line (standard was 40 characters, but this could vary depending on margins and fonts) you could divide that number by two, subtract the number from step #2, take that result and forward that many spaces over from the left margin to begin typing.

While the first few times you do this it seems like a total pain in the ass it actually gets routine quickly.

There is, of course, the old "eyeball it" method which, for people like ballplayers and pilots and artists who deal with spatial relationships a great deal, might come out pretty good even without practice.

With proportional fonts it is a little more complicated - proprotional font typewriters came with information specifying how much space each character took. So you would follow the above three step method to center but step #2 would be more complicated - you'd have to calculate space for each different character. Even so, this was well within the reach of any professional typist. H&P's wouldn't do this (although they might "eyeball" it), which is why, again, the pros might type up a small supply of centered headers for their use.

(For a REAL pain in the ass you could ask your secretary to right-justify a document. After she got done typing your nuts in a knot as a thank-you she would then have to sit down and calcuate character and line-lengths for the entire document, sort of like the centering process. Right-justified documents were rare and wonderful things, and a little awesome if you know that sweat and pain went into their production)

One more point - the fonts of word processors were, by and large based on standard typewriter fonts which is why there is such a close resemblance between many fonts of yesteryear and today. Saying "it's Times New Roman, it must have been done on Word" not only ignores all the OTHER word processors that used fonts of a similar nature, it also blows past the fact that "Times New Roman" was developed in 1931. Many fonts in Word were intended to look like typewriter fonts.

[Broomstick]

Just for the record - I don't have an opinion one way or another on these documents and it won't bother me if they're prove either authentic or forged.

What does annoy me are "experts" who clearly aren't spouting shit that directly contradicts my own personal experience. As I've said, these guys might know the machines, but they clearly have little or no experience in using those machines. Rather like people who pontificate on warbirds and their characteristics but have never actually set foot on an airplane..

[Alex Moon]

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/ker ... 111432.asp

BACK TO THE CBS MEMOS

The only expert cited by CBS in this case, Marcel Matley, wrote in the September 27, 2002 issue of the journal, "The Practical Litigator":

In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible.

Attempting to authenticate a signature from a photocopy is exactly what Matley did for CBS.

Game over.

[Keevan_Colton]

Can people please stop using political scandal sheets (Or at the very least ones so fucking blatant in the fact they arent fucking interested in anything that doesnt fit their predetermined political conclusion) and fucking bloggers as fucking authorities. They arent. They're the evidenciary equivalent of the asshole in the corner of the fucking pub.

Game Over.

[Perinquus]

Can people please stop using political scandal sheets (Or at the very least ones so fucking blatant in the fact they arent fucking interested in anything that doesnt fit their predetermined political conclusion) and fucking bloggers as fucking authorities. They arent. They're the evidenciary equivalent of the asshole in the corner of the fucking pub.

Game Over.

And what do we call dismissing the source instead of refuting the argument?

Oh yeah. An ad hominem fallacy.

[Beowulf]

And the fact that he would have been signing his name over the same format signature block through most of his career, means that he wouldn't know how to make it? The fact that it looks wrong would mean that he would probably have fixed it. Given that the Col. Killian was a pilot, attention to detail is a requirement, and since he reached the rank of Lt. Col., he obviously succeeded at practicing it. And since Lt. Col. rank takes around 12 years(possibly more), he should know what format everything should be in.

Couple of points here:

1) People who do a lot of name signing seldom look hard at their signature block. I've seen executives sign their name to 50 letters before realizing the new secretary has screwed up. Back in the day (and even now) it was the secretary who was the formatting expert - if she (or in the military, frequently a "he") wasn't around you got something approximately right to a quick glance, but incorrect by the rules

2) Yes, being a pilot requires attention to detail - when flying. It does not necessarially follow that equal attention to detail will be paid to other aspect of the pilot's life.

3) Time in service would not equate to skill in typing and adhering to format in communications. Prior to word processors, typing was a skill. All that spell checking, spacing, and other stuff word processers do for you automatically had to be done by human brains and hands. Hence, "typist" used to be a profession rather than an activity everyone did. Back in those days, standard procedure was to either dictate or scrawl by hand on paper the content of a message and give it to the secretary, who would then render it in proper, typed format. So, if he wasn't a "typist" he would have no experience in rendering things in "proper" format, would have to go by memory on details he probably never paid a lot of attention to, and would get something not unlike what we see in these documents..

Ah, but the first three memos were written on weekdays. Commanders have secretaries to type up stuff. So a probably slightly skilled secretary typed them up. Now, since they maintain the screwy format, you're claiming the secretary never learned the proper format in 4 months? And the signature block isn't right to a quickl glance, since it's 3 lines instead of two.

With regards to the 1 August 72 memo why doesn't Harris have a rank attached to his name?

Military mindset. Fold shirts into 6 inch wide rectangles every day for 6 weeks and come back to me.

And you're claiming that someone who doesn't really know how to type would go and try typing something on what is a more complex machine, when there is another less complex machine available. And someone who is a hunt and peck typist would go and use all the complex features on that machine like superscripted th, or smart quotes(if such a thing existed).

The machines were more complex on the inside - actual USE of these machines was only marginally more difficult than any other typewriter.

Now, if the "th" was normal size characters superscripted THAT I would find more odd - there is a way to do that, but it would be unlikely to occur to a non-typist and without practice the results usually didn't look at all good. But if there was a "th" KEY on the typewriter keyboard then it would just be a matter of hitting that key once, just like any other key, and it might look attractive to a hunt-and-pecker to hit one key with "th" vs. hitting "t" and "h" separately.

Also, we aren't talking about "smart quotes" - it's a curled apostrophe. On such a typewriter it would be the ONLY choice for apostrophe, and it would be achieved by the remarkable feat of just pressing the apostrophe key.

So really, if he had a higher-end IBM or other equally sophisticated machine he may have been unaware of how "special" it was, because to a non-typist they didn't look that different to the eye. Some extremely high end machines had some extra levers and keys that might have bothered non-typists, but there were plenty of machines out there that looked like perfectly normal typewriters that had some really cool features that could be used by the experts, and stumbled on by H&P typers

As to how I learned all this - when I was young and had visions of being an artist I thought having a fall-back skill to avoid being a starving artist would be a good idea. I settled on typing because it wasn't that difficult to learn and I figured we'd always need them so I could always get a job doing it to pay the rent (which has, in fact, been the case).

And you maintain that somebody would go in on a Saturday, to type up something, that given his nature, would probably have just been scrawled on a sheet of paper? Referring specifically to the 18 August 73 memo.

Selectric Composers are typesetting machines, and would have been found in a Com Squadron. And the ANG is on the short end of the stick, and would have gotten hand me downs. Look at today, ANG units are still flying F-16As, and probably will get the F-16s flown by line units when those units transition to the F-35.

And you do realize that the memos make multiple references to a non-existant AFM 35-13, which wouldn't be referenced anyway, considering regulations are contained in AFIs. AFMs are guides such as "The Tongue and Quill", AFIs are regs such as AFI 36-2903 "Dress and Appearance"

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubs/obs ... ind=Search

Official USAF e-publishing site.

[Keevan_Colton]

And what do we call dismissing the source instead of refuting the argument?

Oh yeah. An ad hominem fallacy.

Read the fucking thing, they say he did something he said himself was not possible without backing it up. I'm sick fed up of this shit with any person who can set up a bloody blog being sited as a fucking source. Having a fucking webpage doesnt make something legitimate or credible either.

They state he did his authentication via a photocopy, but, it seems the only people working from fucking photocopies are these bloody bloggers.

[MKSheppard]

hmmm Mike Kozolwolski sez:

This one is VERY easy. "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." would NEVER have been typed that way on an official USAF document. It would have been '147 FIG (TAC)' or '147 FIG (TXANG)' - but NEVER spelled out that way.

Hmm...Sorry if this point has been addressed earlier, but I'm jumping in
after almost a week out of the political cycle.

[Perinquus]

And what do we call dismissing the source instead of refuting the argument?

Oh yeah. An ad hominem fallacy.

Read the fucking thing, they say he did something he said himself was not possible without backing it up. I'm sick fed up of this shit with any person who can set up a bloody blog being sited as a fucking source. Having a fucking webpage doesnt make something legitimate or credible either.

They state he did his authentication via a photocopy, but, it seems the only people working from fucking photocopies are these bloody bloggers.

You still aren't addressing the argument. If Matley did, in fact, authenticate the signature via photocopy (and he must have done, since nobody seems to know where the original is), then he is doing something he himself previously stated to be impossible. So this is a valid argument regardless of whether or not the source is a conservative publication, a blogger, or the man in the moon... and you haven't refuted it. You are merely attempting to dismiss the source, and that is an ad hominem fallacy.

[phongn]

Hmm...Sorry if this point has been addressed earlier, but I'm jumping in after almost a week out of the political cycle.

Yeah, it was brought up awhile ago.

[MKSheppard]

[neoolong]

Glocksman posted that already.

[Broomstick]

And the fact that he would have been signing his name over the same format signature block through most of his career, means that he wouldn't know how to make it? The fact that it looks wrong would mean that he would probably have fixed it. Given that the Col. Killian was a pilot, attention to detail is a requirement, and since he reached the rank of Lt. Col., he obviously succeeded at practicing it. And since Lt. Col. rank takes around 12 years(possibly more), he should know what format everything should be in.

Couple of points here:

1) People who do a lot of name signing seldom look hard at their signature block. I've seen executives sign their name to 50 letters before realizing the new secretary has screwed up. Back in the day (and even now) it was the secretary who was the formatting expert - if she (or in the military, frequently a "he") wasn't around you got something approximately right to a quick glance, but incorrect by the rules

2) Yes, being a pilot requires attention to detail - when flying. It does not necessarially follow that equal attention to detail will be paid to other aspect of the pilot's life.

3) Time in service would not equate to skill in typing and adhering to format in communications. Prior to word processors, typing was a skill. All that spell checking, spacing, and other stuff word processers do for you automatically had to be done by human brains and hands. Hence, "typist" used to be a profession rather than an activity everyone did. Back in those days, standard procedure was to either dictate or scrawl by hand on paper the content of a message and give it to the secretary, who would then render it in proper, typed format. So, if he wasn't a "typist" he would have no experience in rendering things in "proper" format, would have to go by memory on details he probably never paid a lot of attention to, and would get something not unlike what we see in these documents..

Ah, but the first three memos were written on weekdays. Commanders have secretaries to type up stuff. So a probably slightly skilled secretary typed them up. Now, since they maintain the screwy format, you're claiming the secretary never learned the proper format in 4 months? And the signature block isn't right to a quickl glance, since it's 3 lines instead of two.

The question I was answering was not about days of the week or the competency of secretaries. Frankly, I can't glance at a date from 30 years ago and instantly calculate it was on a weekday or weekend, that's not one of my talents, and in any case, I did not, in any post address any question about the dates, just those about the areas I have some knowledge.

And since you bring it up - four months? Hell - if a secretary couldn't get that straighted out in one day she'd be fired, both then and now. A competent secretary will either walk in the door knowing the proper format for the job, or, if not, have the wit to ASK for formatting guides right up front. I did temp work of that sort for 10 years, one of the first things I'd ask on a new job site is "Can I see an example of your typical correspondance so I can properly format documents?" Assuming one wasn't provided before I asked. Or a style guide. (The government at all levels routinely publishes style and format guides for contractors, I presume these same references are freely available to their employees as well)

With regards to the 1 August 72 memo why doesn't Harris have a rank attached to his name?

I haven't the foggiest notion. I could throw out hypotheses such as "he's a lousy typist" or "he didn't intend to show it to anyone else so he was careless" but that would be pure speculation on my part and would prove nothing.

And you're claiming that someone who doesn't really know how to type would go and try typing something on what is a more complex machine, when there is another less complex machine available. And someone who is a hunt and peck typist would go and use all the complex features on that machine like superscripted th, or smart quotes(if such a thing existed).

The machines were more complex on the inside - actual USE of these machines was only marginally more difficult than any other typewriter.

Now, if the "th" was normal size characters superscripted THAT I would find more odd - there is a way to do that, but it would be unlikely to occur to a non-typist and without practice the results usually didn't look at all good. But if there was a "th" KEY on the typewriter keyboard then it would just be a matter of hitting that key once, just like any other key, and it might look attractive to a hunt-and-pecker to hit one key with "th" vs. hitting "t" and "h" separately.

Also, we aren't talking about "smart quotes" - it's a curled apostrophe. On such a typewriter it would be the ONLY choice for apostrophe, and it would be achieved by the remarkable feat of just pressing the apostrophe key.

So really, if he had a higher-end IBM or other equally sophisticated machine he may have been unaware of how "special" it was, because to a non-typist they didn't look that different to the eye. Some extremely high end machines had some extra levers and keys that might have bothered non-typists, but there were plenty of machines out there that looked like perfectly normal typewriters that had some really cool features that could be used by the experts, and stumbled on by H&P typers

As to how I learned all this - when I was young and had visions of being an artist I thought having a fall-back skill to avoid being a starving artist would be a good idea. I settled on typing because it wasn't that difficult to learn and I figured we'd always need them so I could always get a job doing it to pay the rent (which has, in fact, been the case).

And you maintain that somebody would go in on a Saturday, to type up something, that given his nature, would probably have just been scrawled on a sheet of paper? Referring specifically to the 18 August 73 memo.

As I previously stated, I was not discussing days of the week or the man's "nature' If you go back and re-read my posts they have all been about typing and typewriters, including bad typists and hunt-and-peck typists, and nothing beyond that area. Other people have been discussing other issues, so you may want to bring these things up with them.

I don't know how I would even go about determining that "18 August 73" was a Saturday as I do not save calenders or datebooks past a year or two at most. I suppose I could search on the web for some sort of handy website that could provide such an answer, but as I was discussing typing and not dates it never even occured to me to do so.

Again, I have limited to participation here to the area where I do have some personal knowledge. Experience that contradicts what some of these so-called "experts" are saying. To repeat: they may be familiar with the machines themselves, but they clearly never used them in the sense of earning a living with them. In other instances, I have pointed out that things they said were "impossible" were not. Perhaps not probable but indeed they were possible.

Selectric Composers are typesetting machines, and would have been found in a Com Squadron.

Since I am not and never have been in any branch of the military I have no clue what would or would not be standard equipment in any military office (although, having worked in many offices, I could probably make some very broad guesses). My statement was that typewriters with proprotional fonts, "curlique" apostrophes, specialty keys, and Time New Roman fonts ALL existed in the 1970's and I knew this because I had had personal experience in using such machines in a variety of settings. I am perfectly content to let someone who actually knows something about the military to determine how likely it would be for such a machine to be in a particular office. Again, I am limiting my statements to areas where I actually have some knowledge about the questions - a tactic it wouldn't hurt others on this board to practice more often.

And you do realize that the memos make multiple references to a non-existant AFM 35-13, which wouldn't be referenced anyway, considering regulations are contained in AFIs. AFMs are guides such as "The Tongue and Quill", AFIs are regs such as AFI 36-2903 "Dress and Appearance"

Why in the hell would I know that? As I have stated many times on this forum, and not just in this thread, I have no military experience whatsoever. I haven't the foggiest notion what the regs are, how they are referenced, or any such thing. Why would I? Again, I know better than to indulge in rampant speculation about matters I have no knowledge of - again, something quite a few folks around here would do well to emulate once in awhile.

My point is that the nitpicks on the fonts, spacing, and special characters are not evidence strong enough to prove forgery. If other evidence does, then fine - that still does not change what I've said or make it untrue.

I still say the only way to TRULY prove/disprove authenticity would be to have an independant, impartial, but qualified individual(s) conduct proper tests on the original documemts, NOT copies. Do I think that will happen? No.

[Beowulf]

The last part of my reply wasn't really directed towards you, but rather in general.

And sorry, it should have been 3 months, damn mistyping. And such a thing exist as to a style guide. It's the AFMAN I posted, "The Tongue and Quill".

You always put ranks on names, because what's to differentiate a Maj Harris from an A1C Harris? Plus, customs and courtesies demand it. I wouldn't call my commander "Mol". It'd be "Col Mol", or some variation of that.

And you'd probably be right to assume that proper tests won't happen on the original documents, because no one knows where the hell they are.

And for shits and giggles:

[Symmetry]

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.

If you print it it changes so as to match. Before this came up I hadn't realized that Word wasn't 100% WYSIWYG

Okay, conspiracy theory time. Let's say the documents are fake. Who faked them? The Left? Nah. Try Bush's campaign.

I do think that its as likely that this was done by the Bush campaign as the Kerry campaign, but I actually rather doubt it was either of them. How could Rove have banked on CBS putting the documents online so that people could analyze them? The Bush team would either have to be far smarter or far dumber than I would credit them with being for this to be their work.

If this is partisan its probably some dumb 19 year old activist, but if I had to bet I'd say it was someone who was after Dan Rather or CBS.

But looky looky, here's an example of the IBM Executive series' output ...

That certainly does address many of the criticisms of the documents, but I don't see any kerning.

I love this right-wingnut logic: "if it could possibly have been made in Microsoft Word, it must have been made in Microsoft Word". Too bad there isn't a stronger word for "fallacy".

I don't think either "if it could possibly have been made in Microsoft Word, it must have been made in Microsoft Word" or the converse "if it could possibly have been made by a 1972 typewriter, it must have been made by a 1972 typewriter" are particularly persuasive. Its just that it having been made by a typewriter requites a large number of assumptions about how a new $1600 dollar typewrite made its way into a Texas Air National Guard base, with several additional keys, and then the author or his secretary employed it to make a few notes and memos look really nice with things like porportional spacing and such, but didn't use these tricks for documents that would see larger circulation. On the other hand, if it was made on Microsoft Word all we have to assume is that the author was a dumbass who didn't change the default settings. Even the single faxing that Rather mentions would be enough to distort it in the ways we see, without having to hypothesize about repeated photocopyings to make it look older.

First of all, it wasn't that uncommon to prepare ahead of a time sheets of paper with centered headers because it did take some time to set these up. Remember - this was before photocopiers were common, too. If a header was really commonly used a company would have it printed on reams of paper, but sometimes in offices the secretary would spend a certain amount of time just banging out something like "Memorandum" centered on the top of the page for a dozen or three sheets so they would be readily at hand when needed.

One of the criticisms leveled against the documents is that they didn't use the preprinted headers we've seen on some of the previously released documents.

Can people please stop using political scandal sheets (Or at the very least ones so fucking blatant in the fact they arent fucking interested in anything that doesnt fit their predetermined political conclusion) and fucking bloggers as fucking authorities. They arent. They're the evidenciary equivalent of the asshole in the corner of the fucking pub.

I think you're mischaracterizing blogs in a way that goes to the heart of why I find this story so interesting. I certainly don't care about the partisan aspect, since I've already decided on my vote in this coming election.

Back when what passed for science consisted of people handing down their pronouncements on how the world worked they did a pretty horrible job, because they pretended to be perfect when they weren't. Blogs often are biased, but all the good ones also give links to criticisms and are quick to admit it when they make a mistake. They certainly aren't authorities outside their areas of expertice if they have any, but expertice can always be brought in or more often finds you.

[EmperorSolo51]

There are actually over 48 complaints I have found on the net with the CBS memos. I found this letter to CBS at the Protestwarrior websites: I found these complaints interesting.

Chairman, CEO VIACOM

Fax: (212) 258-6311 (@@@ Fax is the BEST way to reach him.)

Email: sumner.redstone@viacom.com



Leslie Moonves, president/CEO, CBS -

leslie.moonves@tvc.cbs.com



60II@cbsnews.com



Here are some discrepancies:



1. Proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG)



2. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively...repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn't be assured of authenticity



3. Superscripts not generally available



4. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)



5. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to Rather's forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top



6. Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available – only vertical hash marks.



7. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).



8. Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.



9. Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned carriage.



10. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.



11. Words run over consistent with word processor.



12. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.



13. Signature looks faked, and it cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released.



14. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)



15. No letterhead



16. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.



17. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.



18. Overlap analysis is an exact match (see #15).



19. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter. (see #



20. 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist (actually does exist, but Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).



21. Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. This would not be used on correspondence, but rather forms. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston (this has been confirmed by the Pentagon, per James Rosen on Fox News)



22. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killiam, who did not type, improbable).



23. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1/Lt" not "1st Lt"



24. Subject matter bizarre



25. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.



26. Kerning was not available



27. In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.



28. Language not generally used by military personnel.



29. Not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.



30. Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.



31. Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)



32. The Killiam family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?



33. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?



34. Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.



35. Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.



36. Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies?



37. Acronym should be OER, not ORET.



38. Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added! 39. Handwriting experts are not document experts – apples and oranges.



40. Lt Col Killian didn't type



41. The forged documents had no initials from a clerk



42. There was no CC list (needed for orders)



43. Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military



44. The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")



45. There was no "receipt confirmation box" (required for orders)



46. The superscript "th" in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms).



47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't.



48. May 4, 1972 "order" memo and the May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian's memorandum.

[Joe]

Verifying documents over the phone is OUTSTANDING fact-checking, CBS

OUSTON, Sept. 11 - A former National Guard commander who CBS News said had helped convince it of the authenticity of documents raising new questions about President Bush's military service said on Saturday that he did not believe they were genuine.

The commander, Bobby Hodges, said in a telephone interview that network producers had never showed him the documents but had only read them to him over the phone days before they were featured Wednesday in a "60 Minutes" broadcast. After seeing the documents on Friday, Mr. Hodges said, he concluded that they were falsified.

Mr. Hodges, a former general who spoke to several news organizations this weekend, was just the latest person to challenge the authenticity of the documents, which CBS reported came from the personal files of Mr. Bush's former squadron commander at the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who died 20 years ago.

The memos indicated that Mr. Bush had failed to take a physical "as ordered" and that Mr. Killian was being pressured to "sugarcoat" Mr. Bush's performance rating because Mr. Bush, whose father was then a Texas congressman, was "talking to somebody upstairs."

But they have been the subject of an intense debate, with some forensic document specialists saying they appear to be the work of a modern word processor and others saying they could indeed have been produced by certain types of Vietnam-era typewriters. Some of Mr. Killian's family members have stepped forward to question their legitimacy.

CBS News has stood by its reporting, saying that it obtained the documents through a reliable source and that a host of experts and former Guard officials, including Mr. Hodges, helped convince it of their authenticity. It broadcast an interview on Friday night with one of those experts, a handwriting specialist named Marcel B. Matley, who said the signatures on the documents were consistent with those of Colonel Killian on records the White House had given reporters.

Mr. Hodges, 74, who was group commander of Mr. Bush's squadron in the 147th Fighter Group at Ellington Field in Houston in the early 1970's, said that when someone from CBS called him on Monday night and read him documents, "I thought they were handwritten notes."

He said he had not authenticated the documents for CBS News but had confirmed that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed - namely Mr. Bush's failure to appear for a physical, which military records released previously by the White House show, led to a suspension from flying.

A CBS News spokeswoman, Sandy Genelius, indicated that Mr. Hodges had changed his account.

"We believed General Hodges the first time we spoke to him," Ms. Genelius said. Acknowledging that document authentification is often not an iron-clad process, she said, "We believe the documents to be genuine, we stand by our story and we will continue to report."

A spokeswoman for the CBS anchor Dan Rather, Kim Akhtar, said that Mr. Hodges had declined to appear on camera. As a result, Ms. Akhtar said, he was read the memos and responded that "he was familiar with the contents of the documents and that it sounded just like Killian." He made it clear, she added, that he was a supporter of Mr. Bush.

Mr. Hodges said that he had not spoken with anyone from the Bush administration or campaign about his views and that he was basing his belief now that the records are fakes on "inconsistencies" he had noticed.

He specifically pointed to a memo theorizing that the Texas Guard's chief
of staff, Col. Walter B. Staudt, was pressing Mr. Hodges to give Mr. Bush favorable treatment. Mr. Hodges said that was not the case and that Mr. Staudt had actually retired more than a year earlier, though he acknowledged that Mr. Staudt might have remained in the Guard in some capacity after that. Mr. Staudt has not answered his phone for several days.

Mr. Hodges said he had also begun taking a dim view of the memos after hearing disavowals of them from Colonel Killian's wife and son.

The son, Gary Killian, said Saturday that he initially believed the documents might be real, if only because the signature looked like his father's. He said he had since been persuaded by the skepticism of some document experts.

[MKSheppard]

Remember people, everything bad said about John F Kerry is an evil republican conspiracy, taking orders direct from KKKarl Rove in the
whitehouse, while everything reported that's bad about Bush is all
done by independent people who just want to get the Truth (TM) out!

My take on this:

Someone in one of the Democrat leaning 527s decided to do some
world-class mudslinging and banged this together, and pushed it out
into the world, and CBS eagerly grabbed it up and ran with it without
doing any real basic fact checking, resulting in mucho egg on
their faces.

[Joe]

Remember people, everything bad said about John F Kerry is an evil republican conspiracy, taking orders direct from KKKarl Rove in the
whitehouse, while everything reported that's bad about Bush is all
done by independent people who just want to get the Truth (TM) out!

But Shep, you must remember, even if you have 100 Vets who've signed affidavits, you have to scrutinize each of them, 100 percent, to make sure they're all telling the truth. But a couple of National Guard Memos? No way they could be fake, just a few phone calls and you're ready to roll!

[Darth Wong]

*waits for Shep to acknowledge the official DoD documents which show pretty much the same thing as these disputed 60 minutes documents*

*nothing but cricket sounds*

[MKSheppard]

*waits for Shep to acknowledge the official DoD documents which show pretty much the same thing as these disputed 60 minutes documents*

The only ones I'm aware of are the ones saying that Bush never took
a flight physical in the twilight years of his ANG career, which is no
surprise considering *GASP* that his plane was being decommed, and
there was an enormous glut of trained pilots for the other types.

[Darth Wong]

*waits for Shep to acknowledge the official DoD documents which show pretty much the same thing as these disputed 60 minutes documents*

The only ones I'm aware of are the ones saying that Bush never took a flight physical in the twilight years of his ANG career, which is no surprise considering *GASP* that his plane was being decommed, and there was an enormous glut of trained pilots for the other types.

There's also the one showing that his unit was called up (for a chickenshit mission, but nevertheless he's still supposed to go) and he didn't show, not to mention the fact that the necessary records that should accompany a missed physical are mysteriously absent.

[CJvR]

If this document is genuine shoudn't there be tons of other official documents from that unit and time with a similar look and type available for comparisson in the archives?

[Darth Wong]

If this document is genuine shoudn't there be tons of other official documents from that unit and time with a similar look and type available for comparisson in the archives?

I hope you're not referring to what I just posted, since I'm talking about the DoD documents, not the "60 minutes" documents.