Could 60 Minutes documents on Bush be faked?

[dmadman43]

I care if they're fake or genuine. It's a disgrace to build a "news" story upon faked documents. I think it smacks of CBS trying to manipulate the election, and that infuriates me!

This is nothing new. How many shows has CBS and 60 Minutes done on Bush bashing books? But have they done even ONE 60 Minutes on "Unfit for Command"?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Was it common for officers to write MEMOs to themselves and file them?

I write memos to myself all the time. I'm an independent contractor. I write the memos and either file them away or have them pop up automatically in the time frame I need them. I don't think that's particularly unusual.

Getting back to the issue, how about this possibility? No one is going to be able to prove one way or the other anything that's going to satisfy everyone.

However, what this latest incident does do is make the public more sick and tired of this endless re-examination of what people did or didn't do in the past.

This is a pre-emptive strike for the next group/individual who starts debating what went on 30 years ago. When the public gets fed up enough, they stop listening, and the re-examination of the past fades away as a campaign tool.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
I write memos to myself all the time. I'm an independent contractor. I write the memos and either file them away or have them pop up automatically in the time frame I need them. I don't think that's particularly unusual.

Getting back to the issue, how about this possibility? No one is going to be able to prove one way or the other anything that's going to satisfy everyone.

However, what this latest incident does do is make the public more sick and tired of this endless re-examination of what people did or didn't do in the past.

This is a pre-emptive strike for the next group/individual who starts debating what went on 30 years ago. When the public gets fed up enough, they stop listening, and the re-examination of the past fades away as a campaign tool.

Thanks for the random reference. But, I asked if it was common for OFFICERS in the military to write Memos to themselves. Can you tell me if you wrote Memos to yourself when you were in the military? Was it common practice for you then? I also note that there does not appear to be any watermark on the copies. Didn't the military use paper with watermarks on them for official memos?

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

The thing that bothers me about this is... It seems unlikely that CBS faked the documents. If the documents are fake then someone submitted them to CBS. 60 Minutes would have quite a lot to lose in actually creating faked documents.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by doubletrouble_vb
The thing that bothers me about this is... It seems unlikely that CBS faked the documents. If the documents are fake then someone submitted them to CBS. 60 Minutes would have quite a lot to lose in actually creating faked documents.

Agreed. I wouldn't think CBS, or even FOX would do something like this. But since the documents fit the template of what they already believe about the President it also wouldn't be surprising if they let faked documents slip though unintentionally.

 

[Teejay32]

I wonder if CBS will tell where they came from.

 

[Olaf]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Are you really trying to say that they received copies of memos that they knew to be false.....and they released them without a word, trusting that others would prove them false?

That the president sat there and thought...well, I know this never happened, but let's just go ahead and go along with the story for now? Would you do that if your honor was questioned? Would any rational person? Surely you would at least make mention of the fact that you stand by your story and trust that the doccuments will prove false?

These documents were supposedly created by Lt Col Killian for his own files, and never shown to George Bush. How in the world is President Bush supposed to know what someone put in their own personal files 30 years ago?

I think CBS may have some legal trouble with this guy's family as well.

This whole thing is just too priceless.

 

[Olaf]

Originally posted by Teejay32
I wonder if CBS will tell where they came from.

The public should demand it. CBS has been pulling this kind of crap for years. There's a reason they're last in the ratings race. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Deb in IA]

I personally think the whole matter should be turned over to the EXPERTS to get to the bottom of this, figure it out, and let everyone know what these memos REALLY are.


In other words, snopes.com.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Galahad
Agreed. I wouldn't think CBS, or even FOX would do something like this. But since the documents fit the template of what they already believe about the President it also wouldn't be surprising if they let faked documents slip though unintentionally.

Does this really surprise you from CBS? Really? I'm not. I put CNN in the same boat. Look how they were duped on a Vietnam story. They go in with an agenda and find everything they can to support that agenda.

 

[Geoff_M]

Agreed. I wouldn't think CBS, or even FOX would do something like this. But since the documents fit the template of what they already believe about the President it also wouldn't be surprising if they let faked documents slip though unintentionally.

Galahad, ...a hit and a sink! I don't doubt that CBS tought, and probably still thinks, the documents are the real thing. I think it's a long shot to expect a retraction from them, even in the face of mounting substantial evidence against them.

I also agree with you that it really doesn't matter in the political sense if they're fakes or not. I think people had up their minds long ago about what Bush did, or didn't do, with regard to the ANG. For me, it matters because I want to see major egg on the face of CBS in general and Dan Rather in particular.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by ThAnswr


However, what this latest incident does do is make the public more sick and tired of this endless re-examination of what people did or didn't do in the past.

I disagree. I really don't care when it happened. I care *why* it happened. The picture is much bigger than just this isolated incident. I think people would be more inclined to question the reasons why something like this occurs and keep a sharper eye on what's being presented as fact.

This could have just as easily been something that happen last year instead of 30 years ago.

 

[Geoff_M]

Here's another intresting fact pointed out on Little Green Footballs:

Anyone who ever used an IBM Selectric or a manual typewriter knows that when you reached the end of a typed line, you had to manually cause a “carriage return.” On electric typewriters you could push a button, but on manual machines you had to grab that lever and shove that carriage back to the left margin.

There was no such thing as automatic word-wrap.

So what are the odds that in these documents, supposedly typed by hand in 1972 and 1973, the line breaks would match exactly with a document typed into Microsoft Word, using Word’s default margins?

Answer: approaching absolute zero.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12534_Word_Wrap_in_1973#comments

Also, per my guess Dan "Armstrong" Ra^ther has dug in his heels and is sticking to his guns, even though the natives are surrounding him. From a CNN on-the-street interview of him: "I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?"

 

[currycook]

Hard to beleive if this is true. Reminds all old democrates like me of Nixon and his dirty tricks. I hope this has not come from the DNC but from some rouge crazies. I dont believe that the DNC would have anything to do with something like this, if it is true.

 

[Geoff_M]

currycook,

I honestly doubt anyone connected to the Kerry campgain is to blame. It was probably one of the rabid Bush-haters crowd that hangout at places like MoveOn.org. If the tables were turned, that would be enough for dinosaur media and the DNC to cry "GOP dirty tricks!", but I don't see it that way.

However, I read that Sen. Edwards is now attempting to get himself tangled up in the mess:

Edwards wants Bush to address Guard memos


By KEVIN LANDRIGAN, Telegraph Staff
landrigank@telegraph-nh.com

Published: Friday, Sep. 10, 2004

NASHUA - President Bush should have to explain newly released records that reveal his former Texas National Guard superior was asked to “sugar coat” performance records after finding Bush failed standards to be a trained pilot, Sen. John Edwards said Thursday.

“I think they are reasonable and legitimate questions the White House ought to answer,” Edwards said during an interview with The Telegraph.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040910/NEWS01/209100325

 

[Geoff_M]

More evidence.... The CBS memos used auto-centering on at least one of the addresses. If you ever used a typewriter, you'll remember how big of pain centering was. You had to count the number of characters on the line you wanted to center and divide it by two. You then had to move the platten to the center of the page and backspace the carriage by the number of spaces that resulted in your calculation above. Lines with an odd number of characters were a problem, but some typewriters had a key that would advance the carriage a 1/2 space. However, this whole scheme only worked with typewriters that used monospacing. This method goes out the window with proportional spacing like is in the CBS memos. It was mainly guess work with that spacing method.

Word processors made centering a snap. The computer can figure out the spacing needed and adjust the line as needed. So, how is it that the centered address in one of the memos matches perfectly results of using the auto-centering feature within MS-Word when typing the same address. Funny, huh?



Link

 

[snarfer1]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
I write memos to myself all the time. I'm an independent contractor. I write the memos and either file them away or have them pop up automatically in the time frame I need them. I don't think that's particularly unusual.

Getting back to the issue, how about this possibility? No one is going to be able to prove one way or the other anything that's going to satisfy everyone.

However, what this latest incident does do is make the public more sick and tired of this endless re-examination of what people did or didn't do in the past.

This is a pre-emptive strike for the next group/individual who starts debating what went on 30 years ago. When the public gets fed up enough, they stop listening, and the re-examination of the past fades away as a campaign tool.

Do you SIGN the memos you write to yourself?

I usually use a post-it note myself......

Plus is the Th of your screen name the same th superscript that started this whole mess????? I smell a conspiracy!

 

[Olaf]

This is interesting. From the American Spectator

_________________________________

Washington Prowler

Anatomy of a Forgery

By The Prowler
Published 9/10/2004 12:09:06 AM


More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."

The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

According to a Kerry campaign source, there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on McPherson Square. "Those documents were not something anyone was talking about or trying to generate buzz on," says the staffer. "It wasn't like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren't sure what to make of it, because provenance of these documents was uncertain."

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. "There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we'd do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we'd get more information," says the producer. "If that's the case, then we're bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries."

ABC News' political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian's son made public statements questioning the documents' authenticity.

According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.


http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7096

 

[Twinkles6892]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out- Terry McCauliffe says the Republicans actually did this....Is there NO personal responsibility anymore???

Edited to add: This is Mermaid02... my dd's screen name was all signed in!

 

[faithinkarma]

TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong
by Hunter
Fri Sep 10th, 2004 at 15:37:04 GMT

(From the diaries -- kos)
Against my own better judgment, but because I believe that the more rapidly charges are countered, the better, I spend a goodly portion of the last day researching -- shudder -- typewriters of the '60s and '70s. As everyone on the planet no doubt knows by now, the hard-right of the freeper contingent -- specifically, LittleGreenFootballs, a site which frequently is cited for eliminationist rhetoric and veiled racism, and PowerLine, a site linked to with admiration by such luminaries as Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt -- discovered that if you used the same typeface, you could make documents that looked almost -- but not exactly -- like the TANG documents discovered by CBS News. This qualifies as big news, of course, so from those two sites, the story has spread into the mainstream media through the usual channels, most notably Drudge, NRO, etc.

I do not believe there is any truly "new" information here, but I hope to condense it in one easy-to-digest reference.

So here are some point-by-point findings re: the "forgeries".

Diaries :: Hunter's diary ::

First Claim (LittleGreenFootballs): "The documents can be recreated in Microsoft Word".
What the LGFer did to "prove" this was to type a Microsoft Word document in Times New Roman font, and overlay it with the original document. As he says:



Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word's defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings.

We're going to make this simple.

First, of course, in order to do this, he first had to reduce the document so that the margins were the same, since the original PDF distributed by CBS is quite a bit larger. Then he superimposed the two documents, such that the margins on all sides lined up.

What he then discovered is that Times New Roman typeface is, when viewed on a computer monitor, really, really similar to Times New Roman typeface. Or rather, really really similar to a typeface that is similar to Times New Roman typeface.

Um, OK then.

You see, a "typeface" doesn't just consist of the shape of the letters. It also is a set of rules about the size of the letters in different point sizes, the width of those letters, and the spacing between them. These are all designed in as part of the font, by the designer. Since Microsoft Word was designed to include popular and very-long-used typefaces, it is hardly a surprise that those typefaces, in Microsoft Word, would look similar to, er, themselves, on a typewriter or other publishing device. That's the point of typefaces; to have a uniform look across all publishing devices. To look the same. You could use the same typeface in, for example, OpenOffice, and if it's the same font, surprise-surprise, it will look the same.

So kudos on discovering fonts, freeper guy.

Next, however: do they really match up? Well, no. They don't.

If you shrink each document to be approximately 400-500 pixels across, they do indeed look strikingly similar. But that is because you are compressing the information they contain to 400-500 pixels across. At that size, subtle differences in typeface or letter placement simply cannot be detected; the "pixels" are too big. If you compare the two documents at a larger size, the differences between them are much more striking.

For instance: In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or below the baseline. For example, in the original document, lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the baseline. Look at the word "interference", or even "me". Typewriters do this; computers don't. Granted, if you are comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high, you're not going to see such subtleties. That doesn't prove the differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they almost match!"

"This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s."

There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.

And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.

For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.

So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.

"Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters"

That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.

"This document uses proportional spacing, which didn't exist in the early 1970s."

Turns out, it did. The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. An example of its output is here. It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.

"OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one."

No, again. The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.

(Note: However, it is not immediately clear that the Selectrics and Selectric IIs could not in fact emulate "proportional" spacing. There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. Looking at the blowups, it appears pretty obvious to me that there is, but still researching.)

Did they have a font that looked like Times New Roman? Unclear; they apparently were manufactured in a range of configurations, and with different available typefaces. Note that these were not "typeball" machines, like the Selectrics; they had a normal row of keys. But it is worth noting that IBM had what we will call a "close" relationship with Times New Roman:



Courier was originally designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler for the revolutionary "golfball" typing head technology IBM was then developing for its electric typewriters. (The first typewriter to use the technology was the IBM Selectric Typewriter that debuted in 1961.) Adrian Frutiger had nothing to do with the design, though IBM hired him in the late 1960s to design a version of his Univers typeface for the Selectric. In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices. Consequently, when Apple introduced its first Macintosh computer in 1984 it anachronistically included Courier among its core fonts. In the early 1990s Microsoft, locked in a font format battle with Adobe, hired Monotype Typography to design a series of core fonts for Windows 3.1, many of which were intended to mirror those in the Apple core font group. Thus, New Courier--lighter and crisper than Courier--was born. (In alphabetized screen menus font names are often rearranged for easier access so now we have Courier New MT in which the MT stands for Monotype Typography.)
Courier's vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)

So, as you can see, both IBM and Microsoft specifically obtained the typeface "Times New Roman" from the designers of that font; neither was the creator of it. And, as we said before, typeface includes not just the "shape" of the letters, but the size and spacing between those letters.

One of the differences between the Times New Roman as implemented on the IBM machines, as opposed to Microsoft Word? The IBM machines apparently had the alternative '4' character that matched these memos, while Microsoft Word's TNR does not.

Oops.

Now, would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron have extravagantly purchased typewriters that contained the th superscript key? Would the military want or require typewriters with the 'th', 'nd', and 'rd' characters? Hmm. Ponder, Ponder. What would the 111th need with a th character... I'll leave that to the enterprising among you to deduce.

This is not the final word on this, and it is certainly possible that any documents are forgeries. But the principle argument of the freepers -- that it would be impossible for a TANG office in 1972 to produce documents that look like these -- is simply false. Within a few days, however, we should know for sure either way; these typewriters still have a following, and type samples should be forthcoming.

Update [2004-9-10 4:26:25 by Hunter]: Also see kj's diary just after this one, for evidence on the IBM Selectric Composer, first marketed in 1966. This machine definitively had all the features necessary to produce these documents. Because it was apparently very expensive and difficult to use, the argument is that a TANG office would never have had one. Unclear. Nonetheless, it strikes down the theory that a 60s-70s era machine could not have produced these docs.

Update [2004-9-10 5:48:19 by Hunter]: Here is an excellent article explaining the recent history of Times New Roman in particular. Note that Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, and other firms redesigned their "Times [New] Roman" typefaces in the 80s-90s specifically to more accurately match the original design of Times New Roman:

When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist.
So as you can see, it has indeed been a primary design goal of Microsoft and other firms to make their Times New Roman font match the original 1930's typeface design as closely as possible.
Update [2004-9-10 6:47:49 by Hunter]: Here is an actual manual for an IBM Selectric Composer, circa 1966, itself created using a Composer.

Update [2004-9-10 14:26:41 by Hunter]: This is from a commenter at Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly site:

Kevin, I worked in the IBM Office Products Division field service area fixing typewriters in NYC for over 13 years in the 70s. I can tell you that the Model D can produce those documents, not only did it do proportional spacing, you could order any font that IBM produced AND order keys that had the aftmentioned superscripted "th." Also you could order the platen, thats the roller that grabs the paper, in a 54 tooth configuration that produced space, space and a half and double spacing on the line indexing, this BTW was popular in legal offices. The Model D had to be ordered from a IBM salesmen and was not something that was a off the shelf item, typical delivery time were 4-6 weeks. Also, typewriter keys were changed in the field all the time, its not that hard to do. I wish I had saved my service and parts replacement manuals to backup this claim but I'm guessing a call to IBM with a request for a copy of their font and parts replacement manuals would put this to rest ASAP. Posted by: BillG NYC on September 10, 2004 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK
FYI, but I have found nothing that contradicts this information. It would appear you could order the humble IBM Executive with a wide variety of typestyles and characters, especially if you were a large, important client.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603