I can’t add anything definitive on the possibility that CBS News has torpedoed its credibility by showcasing forged documents in a suspiciously partisan fashion. The factual issues are dealt with quite well at Powerline, here, here and here as well as mainstream media sources, here, here and here.
Especially interesting is this from the family of the memo’s alleged author (the alleged author has been dead for decades). As reported by abcnews:
Marjorie Connell — widow of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the reported author of memos suggesting that Bush did not meet the standards for the Texas Air National Guard — questioned whether the documents were real.
“The wording in these documents is very suspect to me,” she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home. She added that she “just can’t believe these are his words.”
First reported by CBS’s 60 Minutes, the memos allegedly were found in Killian’s personal files. But his family members say they doubt he ever made such documents, let alone kept them.
Connell said Killian did not type, and though he did take notes, they were usually on scraps of paper. “He was a person who did not take copious notes,” she said. “He carried everything in his mind.”
Killian’s son, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father, also told ABC News Radio that he doubts his father wrote the documents. “It was not the nature of my father to keep private files like this, nor would it have been in his own interest to do so,” he said.
“We don’t know where the documents come from,” he said, adding, “They didn’t come from any family member.”
Connell said her late husband would be “turning over in his grave to know that a document such as this would be used against a fellow guardsman,” and she is “sick” and “angry” that his name is “being battled back and forth on television.”
Her late husband was a fan of the young Bush, said Connell, who remarried after her husband died in 1984. “I know for a fact that this young man … was an excellent aviator, an excellent person to be in the Guard, and he was very happy to have him become a member of the 111th.”
I’ll leave further analysis of the factual issues to others. There however an interesting media responsibility issue which should be discussed. If it turned out the CBS relied extensively on forged documents it is obvious that they should issue a very public correction. But what of the source that provides forged documents? Shouldn’t the news agency expose that source?
This could be especially important if, as seems somewhat likely, the source ends up being connected in some way to the Kerry campaign. But it could also be critical to decision making if, as some have suggested, the documents were provided by someone connected to the Bush campaign in some sort of misdirection ploy.
The normal explanation for maintaining confidentiality about sources, even when there might be other social concerns which would normally lead to disclosure, is that to reveal the source would discourage other useful sources from making themselves available. This would decrease the quantity and quality of the information available to the press and by extension to the public.
It seems to me that this explanation does not apply to sources who provide forged documents. Revealing them would tend to discourage anonymous pseudo-sources from providing false documentation and from providing false information to the public through the media.
Perhaps the source did not know that the documents were forged, in which case some of the original explanation may hold. But it doesn’t seem obvious that all the normal resolutions to questions of journalistic confidentiality apply in the case of a source who provides forged documents (at least if he identifies them as authentic).
Gary has surprising useful comments unsurprisingly – a kerning lever?. If Killian didn’t type himself then it seems more plausible to me that fancy features of the Selectric were employed, presumably by a skilled secretary. (My “Killian wanted to make this memo look
esp. good since higher ups would see it” speculation didn’t make me that happy.)
Boo for the title and first sentence.
A pro-doc comment of interest and another one. This would be kind of a fun puzzle if it didn’t have such possibly dire consequences.
I just happened to still have my Officer Fitness Reports from 1971 to 1973. The biggest error the forgers made was that they used 8.5″ by 11″ paper instead of 8″ by 10.5″ paper. That was a very obvious error and but also one that was easy to make. I had forgotten about that major difference myself. As soon as somebody mentioned it, I remembered the smaller paper, although I had never known what size it actually had been. I pulled out my old Fitness reports and measured them. Sure enough 8″ by 10.5″. I believe that size was a federal government standard for several years. I also worked for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and I remembered that when I had looked at older documents (about 1976) they were always smaller. At some point, the feds went to standard size paper. The dates were also incorrect on the forged documents as well. Military documents at that time always had dates like “28 MAR 72”, not “13 August 1972”. After being in the military for a few months, one got in the habit of writing dates in the military manner.
Although it is obvious to an ex-military person that the documents are forged, it is not obvious to a person who has not been in the military. I wouldn’t be surprised if CBS actually helped with the forgeries.
Isn’t it a bit odd, though, whether these documents are forged or not, that the White House and Bush aren’t furiously refuting them?
In fact, isn’t the question of their authenticity something of a sidetrack, interesting though it is, from the issue of whether Bush has continually lied about the events in question?
“if a source screws you, you screw the source”, Ben Bradlee used to say. There is no reason not to reveal a source that spreads false information.
By the way, would it still be okay for other news reports to say that “CBS news has recently learned that George W. Bush disobeyed a direct order from a superior?” After all technically CBS did learn that. And if these are forgeries, well, we don’t know for a fact that CBS doesn’t have another source that shows that Bush disobeyed a direct order. And even if CBS news issues a retraction, there might be another news article 6 months from now that suggests that Bush might have disobeyed an order, and that would make it all okay….
Nah, nevermind. You’re right to treat the two cases differently. I mean, it’s pretty obvious that the Bush administration went to war as a last resort and was scrupulously careful not to mislead the public about Iraq’s nuclear program. And it’s pretty obvious that that those liberals at CBS are at best dupes and at worst co-conspirators with the Kerry campaign, in its effort to smear Bush with amateurish forgeries that if revealed would kill CBS’ credibility and the Kerry campaign’s electoral chances.
By the way, Sebastian, your third link doesn’t work.
It looks to me like someone wanted to make a fool of CBS. And succeeded.
I have ‘google’ eyes from reading half the night. As much as I’d love to see the Demo Dirty Trick Squad go down with Rather at KBS, I’m not convinced yet that the docs are forged. However, if they’re not, it just doesn’t matter. We need to hear more from folks that were in the Guard in 72-73. Many good Americans got into the Guard any way they could. Many good Americans pull strings for ‘important’ people whether they are asked or not. Many good Americans busted their butts to do it right their first 3 or 4 years and then started planning ‘life after’ the last year or so. Many good Americans, when VN started petering out, explored ways to legitmately cut their Guard tour short and go back to school.
If the docs are forged, the backlash will serve them right. If they are not – well it just doesn’t matter, does it?
Oh yes, it’s COMPLETELY suspicious that a Presidential candidate would not immediately, loudly, and with great energy refute every single thing thrown his way, especially if he considers said things ridiculous or beneath notice. Why, indeed, every candidate should waste time refuting ever little thing that comes up, thus making it easier for their opposition to simply keep them busy by generating a ‘scandal of the week’ and bog down their campaign schedule.
So suspicious, indeed. And it’s amusing that such ‘sidetracks’ are generated by the same people who label them thus after they have failed to get a huge response?
Looks to me like a media outlet goofed up, whether by bad choices in creating such a story to begin with or by bad choices in supporting an unreliable source. Glad we have more than one to rely on here. 😉
Albatross;
Oh yes, it’s COMPLETELY suspicious that a Presidential candidate would not immediately, loudly, and with great energy refute every single thing thrown his way, especially if he considers said things ridiculous or beneath notice.
Who said anything about “every single thing”? Apart from you? Actually, the Bush Administration has been pretty good at denunciations of this whole story, so their silence this time round is surprising if the underlying facts are false.
So suspicious, indeed. And it’s amusing that such ‘sidetracks’ are generated by the same people who label them thus after they have failed to get a huge response?
Are you saying I’m the one who forged them…? Or, indeed, have posted about them saying “Ah, look, look what Bush did!”? Please give me a cite from Obsidian Wings or indeed the entire Web. I haven’t mentioned them except to make the point above on this thread and on Gary Farber’s website.
In fact, what makes you decide I create or blog about anti-Bush stories in the first place? Do you know me, Albatross?
Furthermore the ‘sidetrack’ I refer to is the question over the authenticity of the documents, not the question of whether what they say is true or not (which, so far as I’ve seen, no one on the Web is [yet] denying).
James Casey wrote:
No, not all, although it is rather amusing that the President’s critics keep throwing wild punches at someone who keeps beating them with judo.
Thorley, that doesn’t make sense. The White House hasn’t responded to this. Now, I freely admit I’ve not had a single judo lesson in my life (though I did defeat a brown belt once… though not with wild punches, from what I recall), but doesn’t it require contact or a response?
I mean, how can it be judo if they’re standing there doing nothing? If the wild punchers are failing, it’s because they’re falling over of their own accord, and you might as well therefore say the President’s using ninjitsu, or the Force, to defeat them.
This judo analogy makes no sense.
From your weekly standard link Sebastian;
“Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals,”
You don’t know they are fake, and it has not been proven yet. When you get your 100% proof let me know.
My one and only comment on this: I agree with Mark Kleiman (the pre-update part; the update gets into technical questions that are beyond my knowledge.)
Although it is obvious to an ex-military person that the documents are forged, it is not obvious to a person who has not been in the military.
Sorry, Donnie, but we had an old saying in the Navy: “Different ships, different long splices.”
The saying was used to describe the fact that different ships, or units, often had very different processes, procedures, etc. The saying was usually invoked when some ‘nugget’ (junior officer) would tell us this was or wasn’t the way he did something on the MCINERNEY; he’d also be invited to go read what was inscribed on the stern of the ship.
In looking over my paperwork, including FITREPS, commendation letters, medical reports, training reports, memos, personal notes, etc., I can see a variety of paper sizes and paper types. And that’s just the active duty paperwork. The reserve unit paperwork was much more varied and, sometimes, pretty bizarre.
Jadegold – you have your paperwork? From what years. Any superscripts? Proportional spacing? Kerning? Not that it matters to the presidential race I’m just wondering if your docs are forged.
I’ve been tremendously amused by this latest episode of CSI:Blogville, especially the way that those on the right have gone from “These memos mean nothing” to “Hey, are these memos even real” to “These memos are definitely forged, let’s hang the bastards!” in the span of 36 hours.
There’s been some interesting discussion by people with expert knowledge and some serious silliness by people who absolutely no clue whatsoever “Look, I created a document in MS Word and it looks almost the same. It’s a fake!”
I think it’s real funny that people think they have conclusive proof one way or the other at this point when the evidence is still being evaluated. Maybe they’re fake, maybe not. I can’t make that judgement. It’s not my area of expertise.
By the way, here are some words from Dr. Bouffard, who has been quoted some on the pro-forgery arguments in the right-wing blogosphere
The expert doesn’t think anyone is going to be able to say for sure. Yet, the amateur sleuths are saying that they are, in fact, completely sure. Color me less than impressed.
Fabius: Yes. From a period not too far after Bush decided to renege on his commitment. Yes. Yes. Yes. No, I’m pretty certain my docs aren’t forged. But who knows? It could all be a massice conspiracy.
Look, while I’m not an expert, I used an IBM Selectric to publish a small magazine for a couple of years in the mid-seventies. I also worked on layout for several newspapers that used typesetting from a Linotype. I also designed book covers, using Letraset. While at Art School, I concentrated a great deal on typography. When I first began using computers, I created specialized typefaces for native language characters. I spent several years doing desktop publishing when it first arrived on the scene, and I’ve worked for several years in software development in the largest producer of pre-press software and hardware in the world. And I recently reconditioned an Underwood #5 typewriter from the 1920s for fun.
There seems to be a lot of confusion from people who seem to have never used a typewriter, and who don’t understand the difference between a proportional font and proportional spacing. Most mechanical typewriters simply cannot do proportional spacing, regardless of the font they use. The only one that could couldn’t do kerning, which appears in these documents.
Lastly, Chuckundra, while you dismiss the fact that Word produces an identical document, I don’t think you realize how important that is. It’s barely possible to get two different word processing programs to produce documents that are identical. To say that an typewriter in 1973 produced a document identical to one produced by Word (including kerning), using all its default settings, is absolutely astounding. It simply wasn’t possible to do this. And it doesn’t take an expert to know that.
As for the Administration reaction, I don’t think it is shocking that they don’t immediately react to documents that they have never seen before, even if they suspect them to be fakes. If it turns out that you can’t prove they are fakes (note this is true even if you think they are false) drawing attention to it will only make you look shady.
Chuchundra makes a number of excellent points.
Frankly, there’s an awful lot of amateur sleuthing going on; much of it bogus and/or highly suspect.
And it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility the documents are forgeries. However, absent the forger(s) coming forward and confessing, the bona fides of these documents won’t be know until a forensic document examiner actually gets to study the documents in question.
As Lindsay Beyerstein sagely notes:
Seb As for the Administration reaction, I don’t think it is shocking that they don’t immediately react to documents that they have never seen before, even if they suspect them to be fakes.
Although I’m sure that they’ll enjoy the happy coincidence that this will call into question in the minds of the public the reputation and reliability of any other news organization that brings up the guard record, or any other documents that appear.
CBS has a lot to answer for here. That was some pretty shoddy work.
CBS has a lot to answer for here. That was some pretty shoddy work.
Isn’t the jury still out on that?
Isn’t the jury still out on that?
Not as far as I’m concerned. This is like finding a bullet-hole wound in the skull of a T-Rex.
Atrios, Kos, et al are digging up old Selectric composer ads and manuals to prove that proportional spacing technology was available at the time. Yes, that’s a given, but these were extremely expensive machines, very clumsy to use, and were usually used for large companies that wanted to create brochures, etc without having to use a pre-press shop. Why would there be one at a National Guard office? A National Guard office that apparently used “PO Box 34567” as its address, by the way. Even if they did have one of these machines, they could not do kerning. Kerning requires either a human being cutting apart film with an exacto knife, as I used to have to do, or it requires a computer.
All that aside, the fact that you can overlay the same output from Word, and it is identical, is really the stake through the heart. I can’t say it enough, you could not do this, it’s impossible.
Since (some of) the documents were supposedly ones that Killian wrote for himself and which never went into any official record or files, how would the WH be able to say whether they’re genuine or not? Bush himself would not have known Killian had written them, and would never have seen them.
Going back to SH’s original question about media responsibility: Promises of confidentiality have been held by courts (see the Cowles case from Minn. for the archetype) to be enforceable oral contracts. So unless the news organization didn’t state to its sources that false information invalidated the agreement, it’s legally bound to protect the sources whether it wants to or not. The way around that is for journalists to warn sources that bad info, intentional or not, nullifies the agreement, and to routinely burn sources who knowingly provide bad info.
One other point: Whether these particular documents are forged or not (and I could even see Karl Rove ordering up forgeries and having them slipped to CBS, though I don’t think that’s what happened) is irrelevant. The unchallenged documentary evidence shows that Bush didn’t show up for a mandatory physical, got decertified for flight as a result, and suffered none of the consequences generally attending such behavior.
Fredrik
The charge is being leveled not because of content but because of similarities to the technology of today ie microsoft word program vs. typewriters.
Unfortunately Atrios has found similar type in documents from 1963
Excellent question, Fredrik. The reason, of course, is they understand the content is true.
The best defense (and, in politics, the best offense) is the truth. Bush’s team is well aware Bush’s NG service was deficient, so they’re not about to try and refute something they understand is true. Instead, they try to deflect the issue to ‘they wouldn’t have given him an honorable discharge if he hadn’t met his obligations.’
Contrast this to the way Kerry dealt with Swifties. Kerry didn’t merely say ‘look at my decorations,’ he countered with eyewitnesses and the often contradictory statements of his accusers.
I strongly suspect that passing fraudulant documents (or documents that you knew were likely to be fraudulant without warning the reporter) would be deemed bad faith and would remove you from the legal protections of contract.
BTW Kerning, proportional type, and the little ‘th’ were are available, just not all on one machine.
Furthermore the alleged source’s family says he didn’t type, which would suggest that even if he decided to bang out a memo on a typewriter, he wouldn’t have used fancy features like replacing the typewriter ball for the ‘th’ or kerning a document for a personal CYA memo.
Lindsay Beyerstein’s sage notes about the inappropriate nature of document specialists commenting on copies is shown to be way off point considering this from the NYT: “But the characters were hard to make out after so much reproducing of the document, a problem, the CBS News official acknowledged, with the documents in the initial “60 Minutes” program; those documents were not originals and have been copied repeatedly.
Even so, Sebastian, check out the overlay of a Word document and the original here. Even without a clear copy, you can see that the kerning, leading, justification, centering, margins, and line spacing are all identical. No amount of copying artifacts could possible do that.
By the way, in that example, the position of the superscript “th” is different, but when the document is printed from Word, the superscript position is corrected to be identical to the original.
Regarding Atrios’ findings – those were Whitehouse transcripts of a President’s conversations. It isn’t out of the realm of posibility that they were typeset rather than typed.
“However, Dr. Bouffard said, a colleague had called his attention to similarities between the font in the memos and that of the IBM Selectric Composer of the early 1970’s.”
The idea that an Army officer had a Composer in his office is fairly ridiculous, unless it turns out that a newsletter/magazine was regularly produced in said office.
Apparently a lot of people are discussing this without the faintest clue as to what they are talking about. Not that that’s novel.
“As for the Administration reaction, I don’t think it is shocking that they don’t immediately react to documents that they have never seen before….”
This is also utter nonsense, since Dan Bartlett spent hours responding, and his office sent out dozens of copies of the documents for a couple of days now, as linked to in my link. What, he went on for hours discussing the documents, but forgot to mention that it was possible they were forgeries?
I think jesse from pandagon has it about right
Personally, I think there’s more than enough evidence outside of the memos to make any point that people might want to make about Bush’s military service. They’re not really germane to the overall conversation.
Figuring out where the memos came from if they’re fake is the biggie here, and I have a feeling it’s not the Kerry campaign or anyone affiliated with them. I am, however, more than a bit mystified at why a far-too-intense conversation on typewriter history made it to the front pages of the Post and the Times, whereas the obvious factual problems with the Swift Boat ads took weeks of media coverage to even get to those papers in the first place.
If there’s a forger, he or she should come forward and admit what they did. Perhaps at the same news conference where Larry Thurlow gives his Bronze Star back to the military. That, of course, presumes there is a forger, which is still very much up in the air.
I’m sure there’s a typewriter shop somewhere in the D.C. area that’s running around to blogs and various websites right now preparing to make a killing.
Posted by Jesse Taylor
Pro: From a Kos diary:
Con: Kevin Drum:
Lindsay Beyerstein’s sage notes about the inappropriate nature of document specialists commenting on copies is shown to be way off point considering this from the NYT
Ms. Beyerstein makes a number of points about ethical document authentication. She says its not just about looking at typefaces and spacing but of issues concerning provenance.
I’d also note your comments WRT Mrs. Killian are incomplete; Killian’s son does dispute the ‘CYA’ memo but says the others appear genuine. But the family’s opinions are subjective.
And I’d also note Killian’s superior, MGEN Hodges, seems to believe in the content of the memos.
Q: Is your suggestion that these documents, at least a couple of them, could have been fabricated?
DAN BARTLETT: I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that the fact that documents like this are being raised when, in fact, all they do is reaffirm what we’ve said all along, is questionable.
Of course to put on my tinfoil hat I understand how Karl Rove has a strategy of going after an opponent’s strength. How best to undercut the Bush got out of service article being investigated by the Boston Globe and others? Hmmm.
Maybe make it look like it’s all illegitimate accusation.
A quick threadjack:
May I now assume that Sebastian believes that Novak and the other journalists involved should reveal their sources regarding the Plame leak?
After all, he said: “Revealing them [sources of forged documents] would tend to discourage anonymous pseudo-sources from providing false documentation and from providing false information to the public through the media.”
What’s worse, providing false information or providing true information which [arguably] was secret and the disclosure of which was [arguably] highly detrimental to US security? Not, for me, a tough call.
Back on topic:
Moreover, if we punished every source of false administration, this admin would never get ANYTHING in print. How many quotes from “anonymous” administration officials over the last three years have been proven to be pure disinformation, on issues from the war to the budget to medicare reform? thousands?
Doesn’t Hodges’s story moot the whole issue anyway? I thought that the WashPo said that the memos reflected discussions that the dead guy had with him at the time.
I understand why partisans from the right want to suck up all the O2 on the forgery issue; it distracts from the following quote from Scott McClellan added to the transcript of a recent press gaggle which should be getting people pissed off:
“The memos that were released, in fact, show the President was working with his commanders to comply with the order [to get a flight physical].”
HUH? last i checked, when a 1st Lt. got an order, his only acceptable response was “yes, sir” And, if anyone has forgotten, the president did not, in fact, obtain that physical and was grounded as a result.
The White House is ADMITTING that the president conducted himself in a manner while as a soldier which should have immediately resulted in a disciplinary action.
Now, we democrats take a regular pounding about our choice of candidate. Don’t blame me; i live in california. but the republicans offer up, DURING WARTIME, a man whose military conduct should have resulted in severe discipline. wow. just wow.
Francis
p.s. i can’t wait for the “war was winding down so he didn’t need to keep his flight status” comments. i love to hear the explanations as to why politically connected 1st Lts. get to make the decisions as to which orders they choose to obey.
If the agreement between a media outlet and a source has some kind of “as is” language, the fact that the document was a forgery might not lead to invalidation of the contract. Seems to me.
Should lead the media outlet not to enter into the contract, of course.
Assuming a legally binding contract: CBS ought to be pissed off enough to breach the contract, burn the source, and pay whatever damages the burned source can get a jury to award. Contracts aren’t some kind of moral absolute — and CBS ought to have as good an argument for efficient breach here as it will face in its news function.
“This is also utter nonsense, since Dan Bartlett spent hours responding, and his office sent out dozens of copies of the documents for a couple of days now, as linked to in my link. What, he went on for hours discussing the documents, but forgot to mention that it was possible they were forgeries?”
You have a strange view of utter nonsense. If you are in the middle of a hotly contested campaign, even if you suspect documents are forged, you can’t say anything until you can prove it. The reason you can’t say anything is that if you are proven wrong and often even if you are right but not 100% proveably right, it will look like you were trying to engage in a cover-up. It is conventional wisdom that cover-ups are worse than many initial crimes. Therefore, at first you respond as if the documents were legitimate. Later if you can prove them to be forgeries, you do so. That not only isn’t crazy, it makes a good deal of sense.
Jadegold, my comments about Mrs. Killian are incomplete because I don’t talk about her son? Huh? In any case, he says that one of the memos ‘appears’ authentic and that the rest don’t. The NYT unhelpfully neglects to tell us which one he identifies.
FDL, funny you should mention it, but I have argued in comments on the subject (both here and elsewhere) that it would be better for journalists to reveal the source of the Plame leak rather than let speculation run rampant about which administration official endangered a CIA operative. So you don’t need to assume anything about my position. My stated position on the issue is exactly what you wanted it to be.
fdl
I think Sebastian like others (including me) sometimes has issues with the whole goose/gander thing.
Sebastian
I take back the above. You are a paragon of consistency on this issue.
Meanwhile take a look at this for the definitive Kiilian document.
So I hear someone saying Col. Killian’s family says he didn’t type.
OK, suppose he handwrote these documents. A few years later, after word processors were invented, he paid a typist 25 cents a page to type them up for his file.
And that’s just one hypothetical. There are a bazillion other hypotheticals standing between what we know–which is that some experts who have never seen the physical documents believe they were produced on anachronistic technology–and suppositions that the documents were forged for nefarious purposes.
Only CBS has seen the actual documents, knows where they came from, and has interviewed people familiar with them. Given that CBS spent 6 weeks’ studying their authenticity before running the story, given CBS’ record of probity, and given CBS’ immense internal resources, I’m rather inclined at this point to keep my powder dry and wait until I hear the rest of the story.
(And by the way, speaking as a person who did professional typing on typewriters in the early 1970s, there are numerous floating letters in these documents. That’s a 100% guarantee that they were produced either on a typewriter or an impact printer, with typewriter being the most likely guess. A glance at LGF’s “identical” output is enough to show that there is no letter float at all on the LGF version.)
carsick: Unfortunately Atrios has found similar type in documents from 1963
I’ve been going through those, and I can’t find a single one that uses proportional spacing, much less Times Roman, or kerning. I haven’t looked at them all, but I looked at twenty or thirty, and I don’t know what Atrios is referring to.
“Only CBS has seen the actual documents, knows where they came from, and has interviewed people familiar with them.”
According to the NYT, CBS only has copies.
As for my responsibility question, are we pretty much agreed that if these documents turn out to be forgeries, CBS ought to reveal who gave the documents to them?
Only CBS has seen the actual documents…
No, they haven’t. They have only seen copies-of-copies.
…there are numerous floating letters in these documents. That’s a 100% guarantee that they were produced either on a typewriter or an impact printer, with typewriter being the most likely guess.
Looks more like warping than letter float – maybe a copying artifact, or a photoshop filter.
Given that CBS spent 6 weeks’ studying their authenticity before running the story, given CBS’ record of probity, and given CBS’ immense internal resources…
… and it seems the only verification done was a handwriting analyst, and showing the memos to Killian’s friends, who say it seems like what he was saying at the time. Meanwhile, it seems all of the prominent forensic document specialists are very cautiously suspicious.
I don’t know what the New York Times says, but CBS doesn’t seem to be talking about copies here.
Sebastian
I agree. A source is only due loyalty if they are giving information that bears a some majority of truth and authenticity and does not endanger lives unnecessarily or … what else?
Look at “during” in the 3rd line of the 8/18/73 letter. That’s as clear an example of the paper slipping when keys struck as you’ll want to see. No doubt in the world what happened there. That says “typewriter” to me.
If you compare the bottoms of the letters in the original document to the bottoms of the letters in the LGF document, you’ll see a dramatic difference.
“As for my responsibility question, are we pretty much agreed that if these documents turn out to be forgeries, CBS ought to reveal who gave the documents to them?”
Yes.
Look at “during” in the 3rd line of the 8/18/73 letter. That’s as clear an example of the paper slipping when keys struck as you’ll want to see. No doubt in the world what happened there. That says “typewriter” to me.
Why does the baseline shift up in the “du” of “during,” but the x-height (lowercase letter height) stay constant? That says this is warping from a photocopier or a photoshop filter.
Here’s a NG memo which I would have no reason to question. Third sentence of the main text: the word “indicated” suffers from the page slippage you’re talking about. Note the baseline and x-height are parallel, which is exactly the way I’d expect it to look.
Meanwhile, the CBS documents all have rather random and organic warping going on – which I do not think is in any way indicative of it being typewritten, unless the typewriter was slowly melting in the sun that day.
Jonas, what about the supposedly often-floating “e”s cited above at September 10, 2004 01:02 PM?
jonas
Your document shows some examples of baseline shift where height is not affected see “covered” on the 9th line down.
I think you’re trying to hard.
Why was Bush forced not to fly?
Why did he go AWOL in Alabama?
Why did he disobey orders to get his physical?
jonas
I meant “I think you’re trying TOO hard.”
Thank goodness there’s another non-right-winger here with design and typography experience.
Yes, some typewriters would have certain letters that would appear off the baseline (up or down) due to mechanical irruglarities. But two points – (1) that letter would ALWAYS be off by approximately the same amount, and (2) the Selectic was less likely to do this, as it had a type ball instead of a typebar (by the way, these were a gas to type on, even the noise when it turned on was cool).
But if contention is that these documents were produced on an IBM Selectric Composer (unlikely, they cost the same as a house at the time), I doubt that it would display much in the way of character slippage.
“Why did he disobey orders to get his physical?”
If true, my guess would be drug testing.
double
Again Jonas’s link proves helpful. The “mm”s in that memo are clearly proof that your ALWAYS theory needs a bit more work.
You are speculating and calling it proof. As I said to Jonas, I think you’re trying too hard.
Carsick,
Your document shows some examples of baseline shift where height is not affected see “covered” on the 9th line down.
Oh, definitely. That’s a photocopying artifact – one that would be observed regardless of whether the original document was typewritten, typeset, or laser-printed. That’s all I’m saying.
Rilkefan,
Jonas, what about the supposedly often-floating “e”s cited above at September 10, 2004 01:02 PM?
Again, I’m erring on the side of it being a photocopying artifact. I’m looking at some photocopied handouts of typeset books, and they have similiar distortions, despite the fact that they were not typewritten. Looking over the samples from that link however, the IBM Selectric Composer is the only likely culprit I’ve seen so far.
double
Again Jonas’s link proves helpful. The “mm”s in that memo are clearly proof that your ALWAYS theory needs a bit more work.
You are speculating and calling it proof. As I said to Jonas, I think you’re trying too hard.
“indicated” on the 1st line does not look like “indicated” on the third line. “commuting” on the 9th line has it’s mm’s at different heights as well.
Jonas
“Your document shows some examples of baseline shift where height is not affected see “covered” on the 9th line down.
Oh, definitely. That’s a photocopying artifact – one that would be observed regardless of whether the original document was typewritten, typeset, or laser-printed. That’s all I’m saying.”
No you were saying, “Here’s a NG memo which I would have no reason to question. Third sentence of the main text: the word “indicated” suffers from the page slippage you’re talking about.”
Hmmm
Page slippage you wouldn’t question is now a photocopying artifact. Is the page slipping in the photo copier?
Either these things were produced on a standard typewriter, which would display things like letters off the baseline, but wouldn’t have proportional spacing, OR they would be produced on the IBM Composer, which could do proportional spacing, but wouldn’t have letters off the baseline.
I find it hard to believe that a National Guard unit would be typing memos using a near-typesetting typewriter that cost more than the house my parents bought around the same time, and that required a specialized training course in order to operate. Why not just claim that the memos were typeset? Makes about as much sense.
“Why did he disobey orders to get his physical?”
Over at Tacitus, Steve Malynn — who spent something like 20 years in the USMC and the reserves — says that it would be literally inconceivable for a commander to give such an order and doubts it ever happened. He’s a partisan, but he undoubtedly knows his military stuff.
Carsick,
Page slippage you wouldn’t question is now a photocopying artifact. Is the page slipping in the photo copier?
“Covered” on the 9th line down looks like standard photocopier distortion. “Indicated” on the the 3rd line looks like genuine page slippage mentioned. I could be wrong, it could all be distortion – but haven’t seen an instance on the CBS memos that is comparably ambigious.
Also, everyone can try this at home:
1. Type text in Photoshop, 12 point font, maybe Times New Roman.
2. Set your “ripple” filter to 10%, size “small.”
3. Apply the filter 2 to 4 times.
4. Voila, randomly dispersed “floating” letters, plus geniune-looking photocopy distortion.
I’m not maintaining that the distortion was done in photoshop, rather just saying that the evidence being cited as proof of it being typewritten can emerge solely from the phenomenon of distortion and warping, especially photocopiers.
I have no idea whether the documents are real or not. The contents of the documents don’t seem to be contested by the WH and the evidence of Bush not fulfilling his duties but still getting an honorable discharge are documented in other ways (or strangely not documented ie 1972).
But…you guys seem to be wildly speculating and calling your speculation proof. Why is it only a Composer and not an Executive? Why is photocopy creep so important yet you don’t even know if CBS is working with photocopies. On cable the example I saw was with a blue signature and black type. Can you speculate the differences of a color copier vs. a black and white for me?
Carsick,
But…you guys seem to be wildly speculating and calling your speculation proof.
Speculating? Yes. Wildly? Nah. Proof? It is to me – I’ve seen enough Government memos from the 50s, 60s, and 70s that the CBS ones stand out as completely wrong.
Why is photocopy creep so important yet you don’t even know if CBS is working with photocopies.
According to the NYT, they are. Meanwhile, all we have are clearly photocopies of some sort.
Why is it only a Composer and not an Executive?
Because the Composer is the only typewriter that people dug up that had a font resembling the one on the CBS memos. I haven’t seen a sample from the Executive that matches.
On cable the example I saw was with a blue signature and black type. Can you speculate the differences of a color copier vs. a black and white for me?
Ok, now I’m really confused…
says that it would be literally inconceivable for a commander to give such an order and doubts it ever happened. He’s a partisan, but he undoubtedly knows his military stuff.
False. It is actually routine for servicemen to get orders to accomplish physical/medical exams within a specific time period. This requirement is even more rigid in aviation units since flight status (and, therefore, readiness) is at stake. Jo Fish at Democratic Veteran, being a brownshoe, can explain this in greater detail but here’s his take:
But…you guys seem to be wildly speculating and calling your speculation proof. Why is it only a Composer and not an Executive?
Carsick, what exactly is your experience with typography?
I’ve been involved with it at some level for the last thirty years, and have used some of the equipment being discussed. Jonas, while not as old as I, has also indicated some professional knowledge of the topic at hand. Neither one of us is pro-Bush or particularily anti-Kerry, and have no partisan reasons for “wildly speculating” and presenting it as proof. We both know something about the subject, as do a host of actual typography and typesetting experts who are now also indicating that they think these are forgeries. I have yet to talk to someone who knows anything about typography who has seen these and thinks they’re legitimate.
Let’s visit this subject next week, and see if the experts validate them or not. Then one of us may have to eat crow.
JadeGold, that’s interesting . . . it’s the exact opposite of everything Steve said on the Tacitus thread. He said that flight status is always optional, and if a pilot does not want to continue on active flight status, a commander cannot order him to. Would your source be interested in commenting on the Tacitus thread? I’d like to know the truth of this whole thing.
double
Jonas had the better answer.
I won’t have to eat crow about these documents because all I’ve done is point out where your statements disagree with either your statements or your “proof”.
We all know the president was a goof off and f*** up when he was younger ( When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible. -George W Bush) and the veracity of these documents don’t really change that understanding.
You are claiming you are certain they are forgeries. I am not claiming otherwise but I’m also not claiming any certainty one way or another.
JadeGold, here are a couple of the relevant comments:
http://www.tacitus.org/comments/2004/9/9/135329/7958/444#444
http://www.tacitus.org/comments/2004/9/9/135329/7958/436#436
“APPOINTMENT FAILURES Failure to keep a scheduled appointment without prior notification not only consumes valuable provider time, but also denies someone else that time slot. For active duty military an appointment can be considered a direct order. Repeated failures can result in disciplinary action.”
http://www.uscg.mil/mlclant/iscportsmouth/Clinic.htm
The 1972 suspension order stated: “Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT George W. Bush…from flying status are confirmed…Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13.
AFM 35-13 specifies that “When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM …(1) The local commander … will direct an investigation … (2) will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination.”
Bush claims he released all his military records. If that’s true, where are the results of the official investigation and the follow-up report listed in the Order above?
Thanks, Phil. I’ve dealt with Mr. Malynn before and don’t have a great deal of faith in his…interpretations.
Let’s be clear on what the function of the Reserves are. Basically, the Reserves provide the active duty armed services with a pool of trained/skilled personnel for use in cases of national need and/or emergency. Since a Reservist’s training obligations generally are a weekend a month, drilling with a unit, and a two-week annual active duty stint, Reservists aren’t exactly as experienced as his or her active duty counterpart. What the Reserve, therefore, must provide is that pool of people who are up on the current training and have their quals up to date.
This is why maintaining skills like flight training is critical to the readiness of Reserve units.
Jade, I’ve seen you around, but don’t recall sparring. I’ll dance without the snide remarks, cite one dubious interpretation, lets talk. I know the military and the reserves, ground and air, pretty good at the admin stuff. Not an USAF guy, but can find it out.
Interesting you use a brown shoe as your support that an aviator can be ordered to a flight physical. OPNAVINST 3710.7T says that a Naval aviator can request to be removed from flight status. I’ve known Naval Aviators who have done just that. It ends their flight careers, but they serve out their commitments in non-flight status. Just as Bush did.
But the fact is the May 2 memo is a fake anyways.
I recommend folks here watch CBS news with Dan Rather this evening. They do a long segment and defend their claims against the attacks, and rather well i might add. So far as the ‘th’ question, they produced documents already released by Bushco at the same time that show the raised ‘th’ and the Times Roman font has been around since 1931. The rest needs to be seen so if you are on the West Coast, check it out.
The more I think about it, the more I think they’re real.
–I can’t make any conclusion from various witnesses statements. It’s not clear to me why Killian’s family members have any expertise here. Other personnel from the unit seem to say conflicting things. The Bush administration has not disputed the authenticity of the documents, and one officer says he remembers hearing Killian say similar things at the time
And so many of the forensic issues have been debunked:
–People said there were no proportional fonts back then. It turns out there were.
–People said there were no typewriters with superscripts, and one of the forensic experts consulted by the AP says that is her main basis for suspicion. But not only were there other superscripts; other documents in Bush’s file use superscripts.
–People said it superimposed exactly on a Times New Roman Document on MS Word defaults. It does not. The superscript is higher, some letters are lower, and there are some character difference.
–People said Times New Roman didn’t exist back then. But it, or a similar font called Times Roman, did.
–People said it used kerning and this was impossible for a typewriter. But kerning, in the sense of squashing letters together, is possible on a typewriter. I–the dummy who thought that typewriters only used Courier–remember using it in junior high. Gary Farber remembers using it in the 1970s. And in the sense of the exact match between individual letter pairs–the MS Word default that this supposedly so suspiciously resembles has that kind of kerning turned off.
–The “suspicious” 34567 P.O. Box appears on other contemporary documents.
I won’t pretend to have kept careful track of every charge, but a large majority the ones I remember have now been debunked. Powerline’s most recent discussion says that “But I don’t want to lose sight of the more basic point, which is that the documents simply look like word processed documents, not typed documents.” They look as much or more like the proportional space typed documents than like word processed documents, so that’s a pretty &%#@%%&@$^ weak basis for referring confidently to the “fraudulent documents” and saying that “CBS news is walking the plank for the Kerry campaign.”.
Which means these background considerations start to seem stronger:
–To attempt to pass off a laser printed document as a typewritten document, you would have to be, to paraphrase Tommy Franks, “the f***ing stupidest forger in the world”. Like, Scooby Doo villain level stupid. Unless this is some Bush-hating 14 year old, most people remember that computers and especially personal computers with laser printers are recent inventions. How f***ing stupid would you be to forge a “1973” document with your PC and laser printer? It’s not like it’s hard to locate a typewriter. It seems like there ought to be impressions on the paper, slight shifts up and down of the letters, and other clear signs.
It also seems like those signs would be most visible if you examined the document, say, in person, with, say, a powerful magnifying glass, instead of blowing up a not-great quality PDF version. No one but CBS and whoever its forensics are have done that, and CBS stands by its story. People who claim that they would testify “beyond a reasonable doubt” that it is a fake without ever looking at the original, and citing evidence that is later disproven, lose a lot of credibility with me.
(Final question: why do Powerline’s versions have fax numbers on them when CBS’ don’t? I’m assuming they’re using the White House’s scans? It really threw me–I was prepared to never watch CBS again if they based this on faxes.)
It seems like CBS should have its forensics experts why they are convinced, and/or invite independent forensics experts to look at the actual documents. And if they are forgeries CBS should reveal its sources. But I’m increasingly dubious.
So no kerning, and I’m back to leaning towards real docs, with part of the dispute arising because people are seeing copies of copies. Wish I could just look away for a few days…
“Why did he disobey orders to get his physical?”
If true, my guess would be drug testing
Sebastian,
If true? It’s true.
You point out above that it is hard for the White House to claim these are forgeries unless they are certain. But if Bush was never ordered to get a physical they would be certain, wouldn’t they? And then they would have every reason to raise hell about it. They are not raising hell, because they are unsure they are forged,or maybe even know they are legitimate. And that means, among other things, that there was an order.
Sigh.
Take a look at this comparison of proportionally spaced text from MS Word, an IBM Selectric with a proportional font, and an IBM Executive using proportional spacing. Notice that even with a few words being compared, the spacing is wildly off.
Then explain to me why typing the same text into Word using all of the default settings provides a practically identical document, with identical margin breaks, identical header centering, identical leading, and identical tab stops. The difference in superscript position is resolved if you print the document, it ends up being in an identical position to the printed originals.
And, for the record, kerning is impossible on a mechanical typewriter. The typewriter would need to know the previous character typed, and would need to know all the combinations of letters that require kerning. This is why it was done by hand on Linotype output or with Letraset prior to computer technology being able to do it.
Again, kerning is turned OFF on the Word defaults.
d-p-u – it seems (what do I know though) that the state of the conversation is that there wasn’t kerning (see powerline, elsewhere). It is claimed that the similarity is due to MS having originally designed to match the standard of the day, typewritten docs.
Dan Rather stands by the docs, citing some supposed expert.
But ALL Trutype fonts contain kerning information. Word seems to offers a higher level of automatic kerning, but when I test it with certain classical combinations (AW for example) at large font sizes, the results are identical to the kerning=OFF option. Their help on the matter is somewhat lacking as well. So I don’t get it.
At any rate, my main point is that Word produces an almost identical document without changing any settings. Given the enormous number of possible typewriter features that vary from machine to machine (font size, spacing, platen rotation, form of superscript, user-set margins, etc), the odds that Word by coincidence would produce identical output is just a little too out there for me to believe.
Dan Rather stands by the docs, citing some supposed expert.
Was there a name used? So far, all leading experts on this that I’ve read about today, some of them pro-Kerry democrats, have said that they appear to be a forgery.
“the odds that Word by coincidence would produce identical output”
Again, the claim is that the similarity is due to MS having originally designed to match the standard of the day, typewritten docs.
“Was there a name used?”
Marcel Matley is the guy referred to. He’s an actual expert, if such a thing exists on these questions. See the energetic discussion at tacitus.org or look at CBSNews’s story.
Again, the claim is that the similarity is due to MS having originally designed to match the standard of the day, typewritten docs.
Word does not match typewritten docs. Look at the samples that D-P-U pointed out, and tell me how Microsoft Word matches the line breaks of typewritten documents when the letters would clearly be a different width.
Does CBS have originals? If so I don’t understand:
–Why they have not shown high quality close ups or photographs
–Why the forensics experts being quoted elsewhere don’t feel they should look at the originals
marguerite, re whether CBS has originals – from the following (from their site) I get the impression that Matley saw the originals, but it’s just an impression. The relevant hunk of the article follows:
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.
Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday’s “60 Minutes” broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel’s signature on the newly discovered ones.
“We look basically at what’s called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it’s the same person or not,” Matley said. “I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person.”
Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.
Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, “Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures.”
Matley said he’s not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.
“I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me,” he said. “But we seek the truth. That’s what we do. You’re supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it.”
Does CBS have originals? If so I don’t understand:
–Why they have not shown high quality close ups or photographs
Me either.
–Why the forensics experts being quoted elsewhere don’t feel they should look at the originals
Reading the interviews with these guys, they’ve all said they can’t be 100% until they do, but that what they have seen is suspicious.
…and the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.
I downloaded the documents straight from CBS, so that’s their fault, and they might want to do something about it then.
“You have a strange view of utter nonsense. If you are in the middle of a hotly contested campaign, even if you suspect documents are forged, you can’t say anything until you can prove it. The reason you can’t say anything is that if you are proven wrong and often even if you are right but not 100% proveably right, it will look like you were trying to engage in a cover-up.”
What, the excluded middle doesn’t exist, Sebastian?
“We’ll be looking into it, but we’re not yet convinced of the provenance or reliability of these documents” is some sort of bizarre, unheard of, incriminating, declaration?
By who, where, why?
“You can’t say anything.”
Yes, to be sure, we see that lack of ability to suggest doubts all the time in politics. That’s certainly the way the SwiftVets worked.
Does CBS have originals?
CBS has photocopies, which knocks the signature analysis out of the box. I could go on but I don’t want to ruin your fun.
Fun? No, I’m just getting annoyed at everyone involved*.
This poster is having fun, though. He makes a good case that most of the “forensic experts” being quoted in the press have utterly no clue what they’re talking about. Also, think a lot of the reaction to this is being driven by “Gosh, it sure looks like a Times New Roman to me”, “Gosh, my old typewriter sure didn’t write like that”–mine certainly was at first–, and that posts shows why that’s a lousy way to judge. Check out the superimpositions of the two serif fonts, and especially the ads for proportionally spaced fonts on typewriters.
So many of the “definitive proofs” that these were forged have been discredited, and it would be so bloody lazy and stupid to forge these on a laser printer with MS Word defaults, that I still lean towards believing they’re real. But I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, so as a public service I am shutting up. I encourage my fellow members of the “Don’t know what the hell we’re talking about” to follow my example so we can hear the answers through the noise.
*except Gary Farber, who is apparently better at this than the overwhelming majority of the “forensic experts” quoted in the major news stories. Help us Gary Obiwan Farber! You’re our only hope.
Bouffard has reversed course:
It sounds as if the conservative blogs have performed a great service by confirming the importance of these documents. . . .
For those still relying on Killian’s superior’s affirmation of the documents: ”
HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian’s supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were “handwritten” and after CBS read him excerpts he said, “well if he wrote them that’s what he felt.”
Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70’s and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been “computer generated” and are a “fraud”.
Has anyone checked out the matters of fact mentioned in the documents yet? I’m thinking specifically of the PO Box number… anything other than typefaces will do, at least.
Anarch, the PO # appears elsewhere in Bush’s records. Afaik there’s no dispute so far about the content – certainly none from the WH that I’ve heard. (I’m discounting relatives’ opinions here).
Sebastian, Bouffard apparently has reversed his verdict of “forgery”. If Hodges’s opinion was determined as described in the text you quote, it wasn’t worth much in the first place…
“If Hodges’s opinion was determined as described in the text you quote, it wasn’t worth much in the first place…”
Well, duh. But it was 60 Minutes that was relying on Hodge to authenticate the documents. They are the ones who are using a handwriting analyst to verify the authenticity of a copy. If it came from Killian’s ‘personal’ files, why don’t they have access to an original? If it came from Killian’s ‘personal’ files why doesn’t his family know anything about it?
Anarch – one factual question I ought to have noted: Staudt is mentioned in the CYA memo as exerting pressure. At the time in question he had been retired for a year and a half or so. This doesn’t seem relevant to me, but some people appear to care.
Sebastian, the current Hodges statement strikes me as more likely to be teller-of-unpleasant-truth-remorse than otherwise, and at least leaves me with the impression that Hodges felt that the views expressed in the memo weren’t unreasonable, but from here of course it’s impossible to tell. Ditto afaict the rest of your questions. And to say that 60M “rel[ied] on Hodge to authenticate the documents” is in my view extremely tendentious.
The Boston Globe, mostly pro-doc.
Interesting you use a brown shoe as your support that an aviator can be ordered to a flight physical. OPNAVINST 3710.7T says that a Naval aviator can request to be removed from flight status. I’ve known Naval Aviators who have done just that. It ends their flight careers, but they serve out their commitments in non-flight status. Just as Bush did.
This specifically militates against your…interpretation. Yes, aviators and pilots can request to be removed from flight status. It’s rare but it happens.
But you seem to conveniently forget Bush was suspended from flight status for a reason. That reason was the failure to take a flight physical. Now, we could speculate all we want that Bush may have purposely not complied with orders to take the flight physical in order to invite the sanction of being removed from flight status–but I sure you see the problem with that.
Additionally, you make the completely unsupported claim Bush completed the remainder of his time in a non-flight status. The fact is there is no evidence to support that assertion and, indeed, that has been the mystery for many years now.
The Boston Globe, mostly full of crap.
No one’s claiming the $50k reward for proof that Bush ever showed up in Alabama. And no one ever claimed the $10k offered by Gary Trudeau either. Hmmm.
Frederik,
Since (some of) the documents were supposedly ones that Killian wrote for himself and which never went into any official record or files, how would the WH be able to say whether they’re genuine or not? Bush himself would not have known Killian had written them, and would never have seen them.
But Bush would know if he had gotten a direct order to take a physical. If he never did, then he can be sure that document, at least, is phoney.
Also, I presume he would have been notified of his suspension. If was never notified, he knows that one’s false also.
Also, if he never had the conversation with Killian, he would know that one’s false.
So despite all the BS floating around from self-described experts we can be quite sure he did get such an order, disregarded it, and was suspended. These things happened, which, to my mind, makes it overwhelmingly likely the documents are legitimate.
Stop with the Photoshop filters and kerning and all that. It’s nonsense.
So can we please hear what Bush supporters think about his actions, and his statements about them since? Or would you prefer to continue dreaming up theories as a smokescreen? What next? Vince Foster forged them?
Can’t Bouffard talk to an actual media outlet? One that is able to transcribe an entire conversation, or, well, afford one of those recording devices that allow people who weren’t there at the time to hear what he said? And what about the other “specialists” (is this a synonym for expert, or are there really no experts on these matters?) the Globe consulted?
And here we are arguing about the authentication of faxes of copies of whatever. CBS really needs to get some outside people a look at the originals or whatever, and we need to get back to arguing about health care and the deficit and how to corral loose nuke tech.
Can’t Bouffard talk to an actual media outlet?
Would we have heard his response this quickly if he had? What do these “actual media outlets” have going for them, exactly?
One that is able to transcribe an entire conversation, or, well, afford one of those recording devices that allow people who weren’t there at the time to hear what he said?
Misquoting is par for the course with newspapers.
And what about the other “specialists” (is this a synonym for expert, or are there really no experts on these matters?) the Globe consulted?
What about them? Flynn, who didn’t change his mind? Is he misquoted too? Are you implying Newspapers and Networks are better at figuring this out than these experts?
And here we are arguing about the authentication of faxes of copies of whatever.
Yep, and it’s enough to raise a lot of questions, which should be clear by now.
CBS really needs to get some outside people a look at the originals or whatever…
They don’t have them. CBS has been talking around whether they actually have them or not; meanwhile the NYT said they don’t. I’m suspicious.
“Misquoting is par for the course with newspapers.”
Accurate quoting and interviewee remorse is par for the course with newspapers.
Re “specialists”, I was just disputing Slart‘s implied assertion that the Globe is all Bouffard.
Re newspapers vs partisan web sites I’ve never heard of, please.
“And here we are arguing about the authentication of faxes of copies of whatever.”
Yep, and it’s enough to raise a lot of questions, which should be clear by now.
I get the impression that almost any actual non-mass-produced document from 30 years ago disseminated in the same way would provoke a lot of questions.
Also, I presume he would have been notified of his suspension. If was never notified, he knows that one’s false also.
The issue of Bush’s flight suspension isn’t in dispute. It was part of Bush’s partially released records.
Armando at tac lists reasons to think Bouffard’s a buffoon.
Rilkefan,
Accurate quoting and interviewee remorse is par for the course with newspapers.
I think you’re just being naive.
Re newspapers vs partisan web sites I’ve never heard of, please.
If they’re just passing along information from Bouffard, more or less unedited, that’s fine by me.
I get the impression that almost any actual non-mass-produced document from 30 years ago disseminated in the same way would provoke a lot of questions.
Sure, but those I can’t speak to. The appearance of the document and it’s similarity to a Microsoft Word document are what made me so suspicious.
Armando at tac lists reasons to think Bouffard’s a buffoon.
Armando doesn’t work for a newspaper. Why do you care what he thinks?
From an interview with National Guard Review, Winter 1998:
You know if you’re a person taking orders it is pretty easy to think back about whose orders your liked to follow and why.
Two critical lessons on leadership that I did learn, however, were that you never ask your people to do something that you wouldn’t do yourself.
I was ready to go to Vietnam if called. I was a skilled pilot. I could fly … I was too junior to get to go. But had they wanted me, I would have gone. Had they called our unit, I was totally prepared and would have gone.
I can remember walking up to my F-102 fighter and seeing the mechanics there. I was on the same team as them, and I relied on them to make sure that I wasn’t jumping out of an airplane. There was a sense of shared responsibility in that case. The responsibility to get the airplane down. The responsibility to show up and do your job.
I do have some experience on border defense. After all, that was my unit’s mission.
Power can be very corruptive.
Well I kept a level head in a time that was pretty chaotic.
-George Bush
George Bush’s National Guard Interview
Jonas:”If they’re just passing along information from Bouffard, more or less unedited, that’s fine by me.”
If Uma Thurman just gave me a massage, more or less unclothed, that’s fine by me. (It’s even fine by my girlfriend.)
me: “Armando at tac lists reasons to think Bouffard’s a buffoon.”
Jonas: “Armando doesn’t work for a newspaper. Why do you care what he thinks?”
Because Armando reasons logically and cites evidence that can be checked; and is in my experience credible and fair. I referred to his list in the hope that people who haven’t already made up their minds on this subject could better evaluate Bouffard’s credentials (which I wonder about since he’s willing to opine on nth-hand documents and seems uninformed and perhaps has to talk to random websites [instead of say Fox News] to get his views known.)
“And here we are arguing about the authentication of faxes of copies of whatever. CBS really needs to get some outside people a look at the originals or whatever”
CBS doesn’t have the originals.
Because Armando reasons logically and cites evidence that can be checked; and is in my experience credible and fair.
Credible and fair? Armando nitpicks out of ignorance Bouffard’s second-hand statements, and I’m supposed to be impressed?
The reason I’m not taking CBS or Armando that seriously is because they both are citing the mere existence of “Times New Roman” as somehow putting this to rest. They’re merely refuting some ignorant speculation with an ignorant dismissal. There were apparently no matches in the forsensic database for such a font on typewriters, which confirms my anecdotal experience.
Meanwhile, the only “typewriter” I’ve seen dug up so far that has a Times New Romanesque font is the IBM Selectric Composer, which:
– was not used in any of the other, plentiful extant NG documents from this period and office
– would be completely absurd for a Secretary or Killian himself to use for memos
– cannot perfectly center text three times without an apparently enormous and expensive magnetic type drive accessory, and merely using stationary like the other documents would have easily precluded such a massive cache of typesetting equipment, and would have least have been on the right size paper
– the line breaks, spacing, and centering do not match the documents, meanwhile MS Word comes close
– would only produce a superscript “th” by changing the type ball, indicating this is the most typographically obsessed National Guard office in the history of mankind.
It’s absurd. CBS, Armando, Kos, whoever haven’t added anything to the credibility of these documents, because they don’t understand why these things are significant, and would rather not.
Jonas, I think “shredded” would be a better choice above than “nitpicked”, but de gustibus. I think you’ve willfully overlooked the point of my post as I see it and as I described above. And “It’s absurd. CBS, Armando, Kos, whoever haven’t added anything to the credibility of these documents, because they don’t understand why these things are significant, and would rather not.” just seems biased, unfair, and conversation-ending.
If there are a bunch of (high-priority?) memos from Killian floating around with font etc. different from these, then that’s a quite strong argument against these docs – I hadn’t seen this claim before.
To misquote an above post:
“And here we are talking about the authentication of faxes of copies of whatever…” while terrorism is way up. Al Queda is working through the cracks. We’re averaging more American deaths per day in Iraq than the first month or so of the invasion. The economy is stagnant at best. The deficit and debt are at record levels. A gun bill passed under Reagan has been allowed to sunset… the list goes on.
Masterful misdirection if you ask me.
JadeGold,
Thanks. I didn’t know that. So to make Bush look bad someone forged a document that confirms what is already in the public record. That makes a lot of sense.
This whole forgery business is a great smokescreen, but that’s all it is. Bushies don’t have to talk about the NG, or anything else. They get to scream about superscripts instead. We know the events described happened, and the documents are overwhelmingly likely to be legitimate.
But this debate absolves anyone of having to discuss that.
NGR: Could you sum up in a simple phrase what your time in the Guard did for you?
Bush: Well I kept a level head in a time that was pretty chaotic. For me it was much more practical. I am not very good at psychoanalyzing myself, but I learned to fly. I learned to fly jets. General James perhaps had the same experience. I remember telling people everywhere I went that it didn’t matter where you’ve been, where you were going or what you were doing, when you put a burner on you are focused on the moment.
http://www.northupinfo.com/ngdr/archive_details.asp?id=180
Bernard:
The ’60 Minutes’ piece really didn’t add anything to what was previously known.
It was well-known Bush used family connections to get into a Guard unit that had a waiting list of hundreds. This was confirmed in 1998 or 99 when Ben Barnes’ deposition in a court case was made public. Essentially, his interview on ’60 Minutes’ WRT getting Bush into the TANG was the same as his deposition.
And it was well-established via documents FOIA’d from Bush’s incomplete record he had lost his flight status because he failed to complete an ordered flight physical.
So, the Killian documents added nothing especially new.
– would only produce a superscript “th” by changing the type ball, indicating this is the most typographically obsessed National Guard office in the history of mankind.
One thing that’s been bruited is that the typewriter might have had a specific key (plus, presumably, the accompanying doodad) for “th”. Any thoughts?
Anarch,
One thing that’s been bruited is that the typewriter might have had a specific key (plus, presumably, the accompanying doodad) for “th”. Any thoughts?
According to a guy who owns a IBM Selectric Composer, it’s on a seperate type ball thingy. Here he is descibing the process it took him to try to recreate that part of the memo:
To make the superscripted th, I first typed “111”, then switched the font to the 8pt font, switched the escapement lever to the smaller escapement (horizontal movement), reverse indexed the paper 1/2 line up, typed the “th”, indexed 1/2 line down, switched the escapement lever to the wider escapement, then changed the type ball back to the 11pt font. On other tries, I was able to produce the superscripted th much cleaner (where it looked proper), but on the one I sent you, the carrier slipped forward a little bit when I switched the escapement lever to and from the smaller spacing.
Rilkefan,
I think you’ve willfully overlooked the point of my post as I see it and as I described above.
True. I’m simply not interested in arguing about Armando versus Bouffard. I’m interested in the memos.
If there are a bunch of (high-priority?) memos from Killian floating around with font etc. different from these, then that’s a quite strong argument against these docs – I hadn’t seen this claim before.
My apologies, I guess I’m getting a little frustrated with reading all this debate but I haven’t outlined all of the pieces that I’ve noticed following this story for the past day or so.
In any case, this guy is conducting amateur-hour signature analysis. That doesn’t particularily interest me, but it does show samples of previously confirmed Killian memos, in all their monospaced, non-times-roman glory – as one would normally expect.
Barnes’ story doesn’t seem to hold up, Jade.
I fear you’ve badly misread the Daily Howler article. First, it doesn’t directly mention Barnes (who testified under oath as to his part in getting Bush into the TANG); and, second, the Howler piece is about conflicting stories from two newspapers (Dallas Morning News and LA Times) using the same source (not Barnes).
However, let’s play the devil’s advocate for a moment and assume Barnes was lying through his teeth about getting Bush into the NG. How do we account for this 1999 AP story:
If we’re speculating that Bush got into the NG on his own merits, why is Bush thanking Barnes for testimony he knows to be a lie?
If we’re speculating that Bush got into the NG on his own merits, why is Bush thanking Barnes for testimony he knows to be a lie?
It’s you that’s misunderstood. Bush is thanking Barnes for acknowledging the truth, which is that no one in the Bush family asked him to do anything at all.
The Howler article doesn’t mention Barnes, true, but it does put lie to the idea that Bush needed Barnes’ help at all in getting the TANG slot. Which you’d know if you’d bothered to read it.
You must have read a different Daily Howler article; again, the one I read has the LA Times and Dallas Morning News coming to very different conclusions about TANG billet availability after interviewing the same source.
And as Barnes noted, both in his deposition and in the ’60 Minutes’ piece, he maintains that neither Bush sought him out to lobby for TANG billet. Instead, in both the deposition and ’60 Minutes,’ Barnes noted it was Sid Adger, a long-time Bush family friend, business partner, and supporter who asked Barnes for assistance. Given the Bush family penchant for using surrogates, this isn’t surprising.
So, we have a sworn deposition saying Barnes helped get Bush into the TANG. We have Bush, himself, thanking Barnes for that testimony. Hmmmm.
Yes, Barnes has been rather trustworthy as a witness, hasn’t he?
So, we have an archivist with data vs w guy whose word has been…subject to change without notice. Which of these am I supposed to believe?
Which is all more or less beside the point. What the Daily Howler article pointed out rather effectively is there was no such long line of waiting applicants for Bush to have been bumped in front of. Case closed.
Slart, I think you’re overreading the Howler article – “case closed’ seems a bit eager to me. It certainly does raise questions about that part of the case against Bush. Perhaps in the last five years a more definitive set of data has been produced – I’ll keep my eyes peeled.
JadeGold‘s point seems to me quite sensible. Throughout Bush’s political carreer his treatment of his Guard time has seemed less than forthright to me, including this point and the mistakes/… in his autobiography.
Oh, I’m not saying there’s no points at all to be made about Bush’s Guard service. Just that the meme that has Bush being bumped in front of hundreds of candidates has no substance (and has actually been contradicted by the archivist), and the idea that Barnes bumped him in front of hundreds or even dozens of other qualified candidates is therefore fallacious.
“Case closed” is one of those things people say when the case is not closed, like they say “clearly” when things are not clear, “certainly” when things are not certain, and “to tell the truth” when you have reason to doubt what they’re about to say.
One must also understand the reason for Barnes’ deposition in 1998. It wasn’t because Barnes wished to “stick it” to Bush; quite the opposite, in fact.
That Barnes assisted Bush’s entry into the TANG is not just asserted by Barnes but by others.
Point taken. Still, no sense fighting the war of opinion unless it’s in some way backed with fact, and I think the Guard archivist is backed with a great deal more in the way of data than Ben Barnes is.
So, unless one has got something more specific and verifiable than the Howler piece to offer, one is fighting the war of opinion unarmed. IMHO, of course.
Last time I saw the ‘hurry-up-and-raise-the-flag-and-declare-victory’ mantra embodied by “Case Closed”–it was in the Weekly Standard, where it was declared Iraq and Al Qaeda had an “operational relationship.”
That particular “closed case” didn’t stay closed very long.
Jonas: I’m simply not interested in arguing about Armando versus Bouffard. I’m interested in the memos.
This is my view as well. I’m a bit disappointed by some of the comments I’ve been seeing from people on this issue, comments like the poster on Kos who said that Marshall and Drum should “stfu” about their doubts about the memos. And others who have labelled anyone who questions the authenticity of the memos as “freepers and wingnuts.”
First, the entire case against Bush about guard service doesn’t rest on the authenticity of these memos, but it will if the entire debate begins to focus on them. The really sad thing, IMO, is that people like Charles Johnson will gain substantial credibility once these things are uncovered as a fraud, but simply because he has typography experience, not because he has any other insight or special morality.
If more people from the anti-Bush camp had been able to say “Hey, enough people who know something about the technology are raising questions about this, let’s hold off on defending them,” then the situation wouldn’t be as bad. Now, however, a lot of people have put their own credibility on the line by defending them (Kos, Atrios), and are going to look pretty dubious once the facts come out.
My estimation of Marshall and Drum as good source of opinion and fact have risen considerably in the last couple of day.
All the news that’s fit to type?
In reflection on the CBS vs. the right blogosphere Bill Quick writes: There is a tectonic phenomenon at work here that is going to become much more obvious over the next few years. It is this: the incentives inherent in…
The really sad thing, IMO, is that people like Charles Johnson will gain substantial credibility once these things are uncovered as a fraud, but simply because he has typography experience, not because he has any other insight or special morality.
Doubtful. Look, folks like Chas Johnson and Glenn Reynolds have been wrong so many times before, without so much as an “oops,” it’ll take a lot more than being right once or twice.
OTOH, what can we expect if these documents are verified? My thinking is that we’ll get not a mea culpa but just more dark mutterings about conspiracies.
I’ve said it before but these documents don’t shed any new light as to what was already known. US News & World Report neatly summarizes what a very lazy media could have reported long ago.
I agree unreservedly with everything said here.
Question: can the valiant Encyclopedia Browns of the blogosphere now go to work on the rather more important question of whether North Korea has conducted a nuclear test?
I think the U.S. and South Korean government’s reassurances are much more likely than not to be true, that it would make no sense for North Korea to conduct an above ground test near the Chinese border, that you can tell these things with seismographs and they know what their doing, etc. The MOAB-type-bomb theory certainly sounds more sensible. But the statements from Condoleeza Rice and anonymous U.S. officials that it may be “a forest fire of some kind” do not inspire confidence, unless the reports of mushroom clouds and craters visible from sattelites and large explosions are simply false.
I’m not really asking for speculation on what caused this explosion, so much as for information on how you determine whether or not there has been a nuclear test. My understanding is that seismographers can tell with a decent amount of confidence, so the U.S. would be able to rule out a nuclear test without necessarily having much clue about what it was. But I don’t know a blessed thing about seismography. Can someone who does confirm this? I mean, it can’t be that much more difficult to find seismographers than experts on kerning and different models of 1970s IBM typewriters, right?
The lead guy on the docs at Kos investigating in a responsible way. Hopefully this story will be settled one way or the other in the near future.
You’re absolutely correct, Marguerite. For many, many reasons the story in N. Korea is much more important than fonts and typewriters of the early 1970s. I’d be really surprised if it was a nuclear test; seems to me, Japan would be screaming bloody murder as of yesterday if it was. They’d have likely started to register some fallout by now.
Additionally, you’d also expect to see some seismic analyses and satellite imagery. It’s pretty tough to conceal setting off a nuke these days.
JadeGold,
And it was well-established via documents FOIA’d from Bush’s incomplete record he had lost his flight status because he failed to complete an ordered flight physical.
I don’t disagree, but there are a hell of a lot of people who do. I commented over at Asymmetric Information that it was clearcut that Bush had disobeyed an order to take his physical. I was shouted at by lots of people who cited various regulations, claimed no one would ever issue an order via memorandum, etc. The consensus there is that not only are the documents forged but the relevant events never happened. Now I happen to think this is loony, but after all, everyone there is a self-proclaimed expert on forensic document analysis, military procedure, typesetting, or some other relevant topic. Read it and weep.
I’m not an expert on any of that. But to me it is common sense that if Bush had received no order he would say so, declare the memos plainly fake, and complain loudly and piously about smear tactics. Of course the strategic geniuses all argue that not doing so is a masterstroke of some sort.
D-P-U,
Now, however, a lot of people have put their own credibility on the line by defending them (Kos, Atrios), and are going to look pretty dubious once the facts come out.
That’s true on both sides. Watch the arguments from conservatives get even sloppier now as everyone has put their bets down and are standing by it 100% – despite the fact that I am convinced that the forgery charge is ultimately true.
Marguerite,
Question: can the valiant Encyclopedia Browns of the blogosphere now go to work on the rather more important question of whether North Korea has conducted a nuclear test?
This is absurd. The only reason I’ve been personally looking into the memo forgery issue is that it actually depends on facts I am personally able to evaluate. When I first heard that people were claiming it was a forgery, I resigned myself from even considering it given that I presumed that, as usual, it was going to hinge on an understanding of arcane National Guard procedure and regulation and hazy memories of events thirty years ago which I have absolutely no means of evaluating – which, by the way, never stopped most people on both sides of this insipid debate.
Gary Farbers arguments rest on debunking claims individually – proportional spacing, Times New Roman, the superscript “TH” – despite the fact that these undoubtedly simplistic objections lead me and others to understand that the IBM Selectric Composer is the only known typewriter to be able to achieve these various characteristics in combination.
Hunter’s arguments at Kos evaluate a handful of individual issues, which is indeed useful. But again, in combination, the problems have not gone away. Optical centering on the Selectric Composer? I doubt it. It just so happens the Selctric Composer is arbitrarily set to precisely the default settings of MS Word years later, which would be for the wrong size paper? Oh, come on. The Selectric Composer is used only in these personal memos, and none of the other previously confirmed memos of Killian and his office? Please.
Bernard: Did you seriously expect you could suggest untoward behavior by Bush at Asymmetrical Info and get some response other than the tortured whinings of howler monkeys?
The military doesn’t take unilateral action like grounding aviators/pilots on a whim. They do it because the aviator/pilot isn’t medically qualified (declining vision gets a lot of them) or they’ve exhibited poor performance or they fail to keep up with requirements/training.
As the order suspending Bush’s flight status shows: “Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination.”
Bush’s CO likely told Bush several times to get his flight physical. When Bush ignored this “guidance,” (really an order) the CO likely put it down on paper in the form of an order, telling him to comply. After all, it’s not just Bush whose butt is on the line–it’s also the CO’s, whose job it is to maintain the readiness of his wing.
If one doubts the military takes grounding aviators/pilots seriously, please note Bush’s orders confirming his loss of flight status also included this: “Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13.”
This bit refers to “When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1…” and directs: “(1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer’s failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual’s major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination.”
IOW, the chain of command wanted an inquiry held as to why this person failed to comply with his orders. This inquiry is also part of Bush’s missing service record. Again, the use of terms such as “will direct” and “will forward” are military-speak for “this is an order.”
I wonder what the good folks at AI think of people like BGEN David L. McGinnis (former aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs) who said of Bush’s failure to comply with his flight physical requirements: “Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can’t blow off.”
Or MGEN Paul A. Weaver Jr. (former director of the Air National Guard): “There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don’t miss their flight physicals.”
JadeGold,
As I said, the only thing I disagree with you on is the implication that this is crystal clear to everyone. Obviously it’s not.
In a way it goes to Hilzoy’s question as to why people are supporting Bush. We haven’t seen a lot in the way of thoughtful responses. What I fear is that the kind of blind and unquestioning loyalty we see at AI is widespread, and dangerous.
Of course, I’m one of those who simply cannot grasp how anyone could vote for Bush in the face of his actual performance in office. The TANG issue, and his response to it, is just some extra data about what kind of person he is.
Jonas, since we both consider this an important point, I’d like to point to an (unfortunately citeless) claim at tac: “several memos released by the White House and by the Bush campaign under FOIA have identical superscripting, fonts, and spacings…including some that date back to 1968” – if this is true then I think the forgery case is greatly weakened – at least I can’t come up with a simple sustainable anti-doc scenario.
Rilkefan,
…if this is true then I think the forgery case is greatly weakened – at least I can’t come up with a simple sustainable anti-doc scenario.
You’d be dead right about that. However, I have not seen one memo with the ducks lined up in a row like that – if I did, I’d drop this issue. I worry our banned friend Daniel there may have taken the word of various bloggers around town, like the one you showed me a while back, where assertions were made about the typeface being identical and it was clearly not. (That post actually has been edited to reflect that now.)
Meanwhile, the case against the IBM Selectric Composer gets sounder. Apparently, myself and others have been misspeaking – MS Word does not kern, only some dumb-hack fascimile thereof. No matter – the Selectric Composer can’t do the psuedo-kerning either. The argument for the “kerning knob” is rather ludicrous, as we have to assume that Killian or his secretary was tucking in each individual letter beneath the last flawlessly, which would make typing a one-minute memo take hours. Pseudo-kerning on the CBS memos and complete lack of kerning on the IBM Selectric Composer is demonstrated here – although he inaccurately calls it “kerning” without clarification.
HAHAHAHAHA. This is hilarious.
“So despite all the BS floating around from self-described experts we can be quite sure he did get such an order, disregarded it, and was suspended. These things happened, which, to my mind, makes it overwhelmingly likely the documents are legitimate.”
Yeah, and because the sky is blue, this memo I have from God to the angels directing them to paint the sky blue MUST be legit.
Yeah, the “memos” didn’t really say anything new. That’s not the point. The point is that a major news organization like CBS would actually break the story with such a minimum of crappy partisan “evidence.”
Raina: Let’s be clear on a few things, ok?
I’ve no idea if the memos are fake or not. I suspect you don’t, either. But let’s look at what we do know. We know an awful lot of people who are convinced these memos are forgeries have posted a boatload of “evidence” that has been false. We’ve been told Times New Roman font didn’t exist in the early 1970s and that no typewriter, in a nation which put men on the moon, was capable of producing a superscript ‘th.’ Marguerite, several comments upthread, links to a blog which debunks several other claims.
Moreover, if you insist we blame CBS for shoddy journalism, why not also attack USA Today? After all, they, too, obtained copies of the memos (plus 2 more) independent of CBS. They, too, are convinced the memos are real.
Which neatly explains why they’re jumping through a lot of hoops to determine whether they are.
From the USAToday link:
So far, neither the White House nor former officers in the Texas National Guard have challenged the central assertions in the documents: that Bush’s performance as a pilot was under scrutiny by commanders beginning in 1972 and that Killian, his supervisor, was unhappy with him.
And here I thought we were talking about the validity of the documents.
And here I thought we were talking about the validity of the documents.
Of course. But it’s rather telling the WH certainly isn’t taking issue with the contents.
But it’s rather telling the WH certainly isn’t taking issue with the contents.
It’d probably be rather telling if the WH were taking issue with the contents, too.
Raina,
You don’t know what the evidence is. You’ve read a lot of demonstrably false BS posted by morons.
You concede the content is accurate, and the events not in dispute. Then the documents add nothing. So why bother to forge them?
The fact is they are wholly consistent with events, could have been produced at the time, have not been challenged by the White House, and were authenticated by CBS.
On topic, here‘s an interesting discussion of fonts and kerning as it applies to the memos. I’m not adopting or denying his conclusions, just noting that the fellow seems to be rather well-credentialed, and does an exhaustive analysis and explanation of the fonts and other issues.
Bernard: You don’t know what the evidence is. You’ve read a lot of demonstrably false BS posted by morons.
Excuse me? Is this thread to degenerate into name-calling? Could we have a measure of respect for others who have differing opinions please?
JadeGold: We know an awful lot of people who are convinced these memos are forgeries have posted a boatload of “evidence” that has been false. We’ve been told Times New Roman font didn’t exist in the early 1970s and that no typewriter, in a nation which put men on the moon, was capable of producing a superscript ‘th.’ Marguerite, several comments upthread, links to a blog which debunks several other claims.
Jade, I’m guessing that you aren’t old enough to have used a typewriter. While some were apparently available, in the dozens that I used, none had a superscript “th”, or for that matter, a “st”, “nd”, or “rd” either. There were only so many typebars, and it didn’t make sense to waste some on something that wouldn’t be used very often, so I think that some people can be forgiven for assuming that there weren’t any. But it does appear that some typewriters had them, and that it was possible to create them on the IBM Selectric Composer.
Assuming that this National Guard office did indeed have an IBM Selectric Composer, which cost equivelant to about $20,000 in today’s dollars, and that there were personnel who had the training required to use it effectively, and that they were using it to produce memos instead of publication quality brochures, as it was designed to do, and that they only used it for memos regarding George W. Bush, as all other available documents from that office were obviously created on a regular typewriter, here’s what the user would have to do each time they wanted to type that superscript “th”:
Putting people on the moon has absolutely nothing to do with typing technology. After all, the documents as they apppear could have easily been produced on a Linotype machine. It’s just extremely unlikely.
By the way, the above quotation is from this blog that contacted the owner of an IBM Selectric Composer. He reproduces the contents of the memos for us, and the blogger overlays the results with the memo.
D-P-U: Sadly, I’m old enough to have used (and owned) a typewriter. Heck, I can even remember the days when forms were hand-created using Form-A-Line, X-Acto knives and gallons of White-Out.
I’m also old enough to have served in the military as a midshipman, active duty officer, and reserve officer. I can’t claim any specialized expertise with typewriter histories, fonts, etc. To me, it all boils down to there are experts on both sides saying conflicting things.
The problem that immediately strikes me, though, is the fact there were an awful lot of “experts” who threw up an awful lot of accusations that were simply false. I’m also struck by how few–on the “forgery” side–are unconcerned by the fact the content of these memos aren’t in dispute.
The problem that immediately strikes me, though, is the fact there were an awful lot of “experts” who threw up an awful lot of accusations that were simply false.
Sure there were, but on both sides. But that shouldn’t detract from the legitimate points that have been raised. It’s like Reynold’s harping on an on and on about how Kerry got the date of his trip to Cambodia wrong. Even if Kerry mistook Tet for Christmas in his recollection, that error should not then mean that everything else he recalls about Vietnam is also incorrect. In the same way, because a few uninformed right-wingers with an axe to grind climbed on to the memogate express and incorrectly stated that certain fonts didn’t exist, that doesn’t invalidate the other major problems with the memos (especially the perfect match with MS Word).
I’m also struck by how few–on the “forgery” side–are unconcerned by the fact the content of these memos aren’t in dispute.
Why? This discussion isn’t about Bush’s record, it’s about CBS failing to check their sources very carefully. I’m particularily annoyed with CBS in this regard because it’s taken so much attantion away from the actual story, and will cast any further memos or evidence into disrepute.
D-P-U: Again, it comes down to experts saying different things. Some have agendas, some may have legitimate concerns.
CBS claims to have vetted the documents. As does USA Today. Apparently, they were satisfied.
I’m particularily annoyed with CBS in this regard because it’s taken so much attantion away from the actual story, and will cast any further memos or evidence into disrepute.
Come now. Let’s assume the recent Killian memos never surfaced, for a moment. Given the existing and uncontested documentation extant concerning Bush’s spotty NG record and given Bush’s own story on his service has changed several times over the past two decades–do you honestly believe these same folks crying “forgery” would have admitted something was fishy WRT Bush’s TANG tenure?
By the way, that earlier link by Slarti has been hosed, and there’s a new link to it here.
It explains a lot of stuff in technical detail, but the guy really knows his stuff. He nails it by showing that while Times Roman has been around for a long time, the pseudo-kerning used by Word with TrueType fonts (always turned on, by the way, and not the true kerning that is supposed to occur when you turn on kerning) proves that this document could not be created by anything until TrueType version of Times New Roman was made available.
I am amazed, though, that someone with his extensive knowledge of typography has such a crappy-looking page. But the content is excellent.
Fafnir interviews a real expert.
For anyone who still cares, this gentleman claims to have solved the font issue regarding the minor variances between Times New Roman and the font in the memo . I haven’t verified this myself, but he’s a memo-agnostic Democrat who has been interrogating his typographer friend.
Jonas, I don’t see much variation between Times New Roman and the memo font that can’t be explained by photocopy artifacts.
Jonas, I don’t see much variation between Times New Roman and the memo font that can’t be explained by photocopy artifacts.
Could be. I could have sworn when I was futzing around in Photoshop with the memo and Times New Roman that there were some fundamental differences between them, but I can’t recall specifically what it was. I’ll wait and see what case this guy makes, and take it from there I guess.