Could 60 Minutes documents on Bush be faked?

[Laz]

You decide.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

 

[Disney Doll]

I'm sure President Bush's camp will say it's fake an Senator Kerry's camp will say it's authentic.

 

[KarenC]

I could be mis-remembering, but I think I've used a typewriter that had a key that superscripted th and st. You didn't have to change anything...you just hit the key and it raised the th or st.

 

[bsnyder]

Seems like this should be a pretty easy thing to prove definitively, one way or another. As I posted on another thread, the blosophere is absolutely buzzing about this story right now.

And it'll be really interesting, if they ARE proven to be forgeries, to hear the explainations from CBS and the Boston Globe.

 

[faithinkarma]

It seems worth noting that the White House accepted the documents as genuine and even began releasing them to other journalists yesterday evening -- though it's not clear to me whether they were releasing their own copies or simply passing on what CBS had given them.

The deeper point is that CBS reported that they had handwriting experts scrutinize these documents to ascertain their authenticity. It seems hard to imagine they'd go to such lengths to have experts analyze them and not check out something so obvious as seeing if they'd been written by a typewriter that was in existence at time. (Hard to imagine or, if true, unimaginably stupid.)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

[faithinkarma]

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program. ...
The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.L.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

But buried at the end of the article is this:
"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."


Actually, he's off by 10-15 years, according to the Production First Software Encyclopedia of Typography and Electronic Communication:

The first typewriter using a moving replaceable font ball element (the Selectric) was introduced in 1961 by IBM. ... [T]he Selectric Composer machine [offered] proportional spaced fonts, automatic line justification, and adjustable letter and word spacing....
So one of claims made by the "experts" quoted in this article is bogus.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/9/153213/0277

 

[dmadman43]

yawn

is this really that important? If so, then Kerry should release his records. I mean, I have a question: Why was Kerry not given an honorable discharge until 1978?

 

[faithinkarma]

once again:

It is my understanding that the only records Kerry has not released are his medical records ( nor has the president released his medical records ). And that Kerry has opened his medical records for reporters to see ( but not copy ), as has the president.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2...11675,00.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/22/W...es_milita.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3645753.stm
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john...ry_records.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselectio...1201140,00.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/te...military22.html

 

[peachgirl]

Why was Kerry not given an honorable discharge until 1978?

He was honorably discharged from active duty in 1970, I believe, and transferred to the Naval Reserve. The 1978 date is his honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve.

Ok, I looked it up and I was sort of not right...

He was honorably discharged from his E-5 status in '66 to accept a commission in the Naval Reserve, active duty. He was put on inactive duty, Naval Reserve in '70, transferred to standby reserve in '72 and honorably discharged from the Naval Reserve in '78,

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by peachgirl
He was honorably discharged from active duty in 1970, I believe, and transferred to the Naval Reserve. The 1978 date is his honorable discharge from the Naval Reserve.

Again, why not until 1978? Did he fulfill his Naval Reserve duties while he was off representing North Vietnam in the Paris peace talks and his other various and sundry war protestations?

 

[peachgirl]

Again, why not until 1978?

Seems to me like he wanted to stay in the reserves...

What's your point?

 

[peachgirl]

Oh wait, I just figured out your point.

This thread is about Bush's lack of service and you'd like to sidetrack it.

Gee, it almost worked.

Everything I've read today says the fake document claim won't hold up. There were typewriters that had this particular feature. The documents have been very carefully scrutinized. I doubt the right is going to be able to claim forgery.

Since the White House is releasing the documents, obviously Bush knows they're authentic.


A case of wishful thinking I'm afraid.

 

[KarenC]

My dad was in the inactive naval reserves through much of Viet Nam. It was always a worry that he would be activated. There were literally no requirements of him, no training, no exercises while he was inactive. The only thing was, if they called him up, he had to go.

 

[SoonerKate]

If so, then Kerry should release his records.

You can see Kerry's official Naval records here: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html .

His after-action combat reports are here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/combat_reports.html

A physician's summary of his medical reports is available here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/medical.html

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Oh wait, I just figured out your point.

This thread is about Bush's lack of service and you'd like to sidetrack it.

Gee, it almost worked.

Everything I've read today says the fake document claim won't hold up. There were typewriters that had this particular feature. The documents have been very carefully scrutinized. I doubt the right is going to be able to claim forgery.

Since the White House is releasing the documents, obviously Bush knows they're authentic.


A case of wishful thinking I'm afraid.

So, if military service is a requirement for President, would it be safe to assume you voted for (or would have voted for) GWH Bush in '92 and Dole in '96? If not, why not?

As for the what typewriters could do in 1972. Try this for an experiment. Type 111th in Word and see what you get. It will look a lot like the 111th you get in the memo being quoted. How on earth did they do that in 1972 and better yet, why? I'm sure AFR can tell us the AF can be pretty anal about formatting and following standards. Like they changed my Squadron from being 81st TRSS to 81 TRSS...if you typed 81st TRSS your letter would be squashed from the admins. Also if you tryed to get fancy with the formatting they would send it back. I'm not sure if this was the case in 1972 though. Is there anyone on here that was in the AF during that time that would know?

I used to sell IBM Selectrics and I don’t remember proportional spacing before the mid-80’s. Back in ’72, everybody used typewriters, and IBM Selectrics didn’t do proportional spacing with superscripts.

I also note with interest that the text is kerned. How was one able to do that with typewriters in '72?

 

[LMC]

OK, my FIL is the one in the AL nat'l guard that GWB had to report to when he was on duty. I have no reason to believe that FIL would lie about GW reporting to duty if he was not really there. I was just a small kid then so I can not even comment on the actual events. I believe that if anyone wants to know what went on in AL then they should be looking in AL for the records. Because if everyone signed in on the same log sheets then they would be housed in that location, assuming that the gov't would keep something like that for this many years.

 

[Geoff_M]

The document in question appear to have been produced with MS-Word. It took this guy only a few minutes to produce an identical copy of the "memo" on his PC. He overlaid the CBS memo and his and they are a perfect match*. Also note his finding that the position of the date at the top of the letter perfectly matches one of the default tab positions in MS-Word:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged#comments

Perhaps CBS could help things out by releasing the names of the un-named "experts" they consulted beforehand.


* The only difference between is the position of the superscript "th", but MS-Word displays on-screen and prints the "th" in different locations. The position of the printed version of the MS-Word doc matches the CBS "document".


Update: Looks like Lt. Col. Killian's signature doesn't pass muster either:

 

[kbeverina]

This is the first I'm hearing this--who is saying they're faked?

I read the link and looked at the memo--it looks like the letters aren't in even lines in some places, like a manual typewriter, not WP. Just eyeballing it, it doesn't look like it came off a computer.

The one thing that struck me, though, was the date in the body of the letter. There's a comma after the month, before the year. That's not standard and it sticks out.

It also doesn't look like the "th" is superscripted elsewhere in the letter--why would that be?

It's almost like the top is letterhead, but the body isn't. Was letterhead used or the whole thing typed at one time?

 

[kbeverina]

It must be the same people who faked the Niger documents.

 

[disney4us2002]

Additionally, the general mentioned in the memo from 1973 had retired in 1972 according to a report in the LA Times from Feb 2004.

I've read tons on this and it seems most are giving CBS the benefit of the doubt and saying stuff like "CBS was duped" or "CBS is the victim of a hoax". I'm not so sure that CBS should be let off the hook so readily. If hundreds of bloggers and readers are questioning (determining) the authenticity of these memos in just a few hours, why wasn't CBS equally able? Did they in fact even try to authenticate? The evidence is mounting and CBS won't be able to ignore this forever.