NationStates Jolt Archive

According to CBS news and Dan Rather (Here is some of the transcript from the show):

*Rather: Typewriters did have superscript in 70s
*Rather: Bush National Guard records, provided by WH, have superscript
*Rather: Times New Roman available since 1931
*Expert says docs real, questions what is being examined by document critics
*Expert Marcel Matley says signatures on documents are authentic
*Robert Strong: docs are authentic
*Jim Moore: docs accurately reflect events, based on known authentic documents
*Jim Moore: White House has not discredited the documents, is relying on blogosphere to create doubt. WH probably knows documents are real.
*Rather: Story not solely based on documents -- interviews, etc.
*Rather: No evidence to show that docs are forgeries.

Thanks

now that that is cleared up we can keep that on teh back burner for the nay sayers and concentrate on real issues again.

Lets get hound bush on his 9/11 stuff - this should surely get his goat.

wherh

I don't think I care.

THANK YOU
my husband (the hispanic republican) and i (the angla democrat) have been fighting over this since yesterday afternoon

1 point for MEEEEEEEE

Let's compare:

The genuine typed memo (original):
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/Doc20.gif

CBS's fake:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/Aug18memo.jpg

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

[/thread, discussion, and all of CBS's bloody lies]

Times New Roman was not (and, I believe, is not) available on typewriters. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the Texas ANG would high-end typewriters with such neato features like superscript.

Times New Roman was not (and, I believe, is not) available on typewriters. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the Texas ANG would high-end typewriters with such neato features like superscript.

*Rather: Times New Roman available since 1931

According to CBS news and Dan Rather (Here is some of the transcript from the show):

*Rather: Typewriters did have superscript in 70s
*Rather: Bush National Guard records, provided by WH, have superscript
*Rather: Times New Roman available since 1931
*Expert says docs real, questions what is being examined by document critics
*Expert Marcel Matley says signatures on documents are authentic
*Robert Strong: docs are authentic
*Jim Moore: docs accurately reflect events, based on known authentic documents
*Jim Moore: White House has not discredited the documents, is relying on blogosphere to create doubt. WH probably knows documents are real.
*Rather: Story not solely based on documents -- interviews, etc.
*Rather: No evidence to show that docs are forgeries.
if cbs , dan rather and experts say so, it must be true!!

Is all I can think when I see your people oblivious to all the atrocities your government has done to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and many other countries of the world. Bush is a terrorist and promotes fear in your people and stupid people believe him and are glued to the TV watching propaganda thinking they will save you. Instead of killing your soldiers (which are mostly poor and brain washed teenagers) and the thousands or civilians, your soldiers should be helping in Florida and other disasters zones in your country and aboard. I hope you wake up and start changing your government to other more benign ways, and really help people and not destroy them.

Is all I can think when I see your people oblivious to all the atrocities your government has done to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and many other countries of the world. Bush is a terrorist and promotes fear in your people and stupid people believe him and are glued to the TV watching propaganda thinking they will save you. Instead of killing your soldiers (which are mostly poor and brain washed teenagers) and the thousands or civilians, your soldiers should be helping in Florida and other disasters zones in your country and aboard. I hope you wake up and start changing your government to other more benign ways, and really help people and not destroy them.
I take it you've conveniently not noticed all the Americans on NS who hate Bush with a passion?

Actually, this does not prove a thing in reality. There is still a question of the signature and that can throw everything off. This is not over yet

The signature is just the icing. The memo was done using Microsoft Word.

Proportional Spacing - Available only on a couple high-end ($3000+) 1972 typewriters. Required expertise to use. No one would use proportional spacing for an internal memo.

Times New Roman - Typewriters used Courier font. You could get other fonts, but they cost extra. And I don't think anyone but the London Times used Times New Roman until the 1980s.

Superscript - There were typewriters that could nudge text up half a line. But the only way to do that and to reduce the size of the "th" would be to stop typing, remove

"Smart quotes" - A feature of Microsoft Word, totally unavailable on typewriters who used "straight quotes" (like this web forum). A smart quote is a curved quotation mark. No one has even tried to refute this one.

Auto-centering - Check out the address at the top of this memo (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf). It is exactly centered which is impossible for a manual typewriter.

But if you can reasonably reproduce those memos using a 1972 typewriter then step forward for a $10,000 reward (http://defeatjohnjohn.com/2004/09/10000-part-two-ibm-selectric.htm).

There are several subjects devoted to this at Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) with lots of comparison screenshots and overlays. Enjoy.

Who faked these memos and why?

of course all of the pro-bushers on the NS forums are FAR more experienced and knowledgable in the subject than the type and handwriting experts the right have trying to discredit the papers.

The signature is just the icing. The memo was done using Microsoft Word.

Proportional Spacing - Available only on a couple high-end ($3000+) 1972 typewriters. Required expertise to use. No one would use proportional spacing for an internal memo.

Times New Roman - Typewriters used Courier font. You could get other fonts, but they cost extra. And I don't think anyone but the London Times used Times New Roman until the 1980s.

Superscript - There were typewriters that could nudge text up half a line. But the only way to do that and to reduce the size of the "th" would be to stop typing, remove

"Smart quotes" - A feature of Microsoft Word, totally unavailable on typewriters who used "straight quotes" (like this web forum). A smart quote is a curved quotation mark. No one has even tried to refute this one.

Auto-centering - Check out the address at the top of this memo (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf). It is exactly centered which is impossible for a manual typewriter.

But if you can reasonably reproduce those memos using a 1972 typewriter then step forward for a $10,000 reward (http://defeatjohnjohn.com/2004/09/10000-part-two-ibm-selectric.htm).

There are several subjects devoted to this at Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/) with lots of comparison screenshots and overlays. Enjoy.

Who faked these memos and why?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

Daily Kos deals with most of that. Try again.

of course all of the pro-bushers on the NS forums are FAR more experienced and knowledgable in the subject than the type and handwriting experts the right have trying to discredit the papers.
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/donthurtme.jpg

http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/donthurtme.jpg
That was a pathetic rebuttle.

Actually, if these memos turned out to be true, as Rather claims they are, then it would be front page news.

On all MAJOR NEWS SITES, they are still being questioned. I sincerely doubt that they are real. Hell in my local paper, the one here at the university, the late commander's son doubts his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's perfomance review. (Lancaster New Era)

Also he stated: "It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that.

A friend of the late commander who knew him for 17 years doubts he would do that too.

Another expert, Sandra Ramsy Lines said that the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word softwar. Lines is a document expert and feloow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. She pointed to a superscript, a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron", as the evidence (slightly paraphrased but non-the-less from the same article.) She even went on to state that she is sure that they were computer generated.

That was a pathetic rebuttle.
Was it? Shit I thought I was joking! Thanks for setting me straight oh great fountain of knowledge and wisdom
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/goyou.jpg
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/you_super.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.guard.ap/index.html

Some of what I posted is also in this article on CNN to.

Last I checked, the main problems weren't "typewriters didn't have that!" anymore, it's "Ok, it looks fucking NOTHING like the other memos"

This is great. The Democrats are so tied up with the forgeries, Kerry is going to burn when CBS caves.

This is great. The Democrats are so tied up with the forgeries, Kerry is going to burn when CBS caves.

Wait, you also know how to send those "light up match letter thingies?" DUde, teach me!

(it's a joke. But if you do know, teach me! :D)

I posted this in the other thread, but it was late last night and I don't know if all the "these are forgeries" people had seen it or read it. One of the document experts has changed his mind because a possibility he hadn't considered has come up (guess he'll be called a flip-flopper now). From the Boston Globe. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents?mode=PF)

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

Analysts who have examined the documents focus on several facets of their typography, among them the use of a curved apostrophe, a raised, or superscript, ''th," and the proportional spacing between the characters -- spacing which varies with the width of the letters. In older typewriters, each letter was alloted the same space.

Those who doubt the documents say those typographical elements would not have been commonly available at the time of Bush's service. But such characters were common features on electric typewriters of that era, the Globe determined through interviews with specialists and examination of documents from the period. In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.

snip

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM.

''You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.

snip

White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended the president's service record, but offered no view on whether the CBS documents are authentic. The fact that the documents could have been produced on machines of the time and that the White House is still not questioning either the content of the authenticity of the documents has to lead you to the conlcusion that they're more likely real than fake.

And if you're waiting for the rest of the press to come out and say on the headlines that the documents are real after all, don't hold your breath. Any correction they make will be subdued at best if they even bother to make one--no one likes being publicly taken for a ride by partisan groups, and the group that pushed this story the hardest from the beginning certainly has Republican ties. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/10/forgery/index.html)

http://koti.mbnet.fi/mazgurth/pics/pictures/donthurtme.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/warning.gif

Sorry, I thought I'd wandered into a semi-serious conversation here. My bad.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html

No 70's typewriter can perform kerning. The documents are fake.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html

No 70's typewriter can perform kerning. The documents are fake.
is it just me or does every pro-busher here believe they are experts in 70s technology, handwriting, and typing

if they were fake you would think the army of experts would have already declared them so, shut the fuck up

and didnt i school all you "they didnt have computers in the 70s" people in another thread already

is it just me or does every pro-busher here believe they are experts in 70s technology, handwriting, and typing

if they were fake you would think the army of experts would have already declared them so, shut the fuck up

and didnt i school all you "they didnt have computers in the 70s" people in another thread already

Army? CBS used one "expert", a handwriting expert to boot, to "verify" the document.

A whole army of real typesetting experts have indeed questioned the authenticity of the document. Read the news stories on CNN and ABC.

They sure had computers back in the 70's. I doubt they were using Microsoft Word 2003 though, LOL! :)

Army? CBS used one "expert", a handwriting expert to boot, to "verify" the document.

A whole army of real typesetting experts have indeed questioned the authenticity of the document. Read the news stories on CNN and ABC.

They sure had computers back in the 70's. I doubt they were using Microsoft Word 2003 though, LOL! :)
has ANY one of the army of experts stated outright the documents are fake, if you cannot quote one expert, please stop posting

has ANY one of the army of experts stated outright the documents are fake, if you cannot quote one expert, please stop posting

If I were an expert in typesetting, I'd make absoutely, 100% sure I am correct before committing because my career would be on the line.

Looks like SeeBS doesn't feel that way, HAHAHA!

If I were an expert in typesetting, I'd make absoutely, 100% sure I am correct before committing because my career would be on the line.

Looks like SeeBS doesn't feel that way, HAHAHA!
bingo, only ignorant partisan asses like yourself have declared they are false, thus your opinion isnt worth shit as the army of experts havnt made their decision

Hi, I'm Pan-Arab Israel, and I beleive every single thing shown to me by members of the right, and doubt every single thing published by those I perceive to be on the left (i.e. every source in the known universe, unless a particular story on it agrees with my preconceived worldview.)

Now watch this denial.
:sniper:

Show me how they're real.

We have evidence and we're presenting it.

:sniper:

Say hi to my ignore list. Bye!

Show me how they're real.

We have evidence and we're presenting it.

and evidence that clearly refutes every single one of the points that are supposed to make it a forgery have been posted. More than once. Did you read them?

Now watch this denial.

Show me how they're real.

We have evidence and we're presenting it.

Not to mention an expert in this by the name of Sandra Ramsey Lines who says they are forgeries too.

Sandra Ramsey Lines is a person of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. She is certain that they were made on a Computer.

and evidence that clearly refutes every single one of the points that are supposed to make it a forgery have been posted. More than once. Did you read them?

Now watch this denial.

I did and you know what? Did you read what I've typing that has defuted what you've been saying or do I have to quote CNN again as well as my local paper, which is easier actually.

Would it really make a difference if he hadn't been in the military?

Say hi to my ignore list. Bye!

It's an honor, sir. Can't say as that I'll miss you. All I've ever seen you post are repetitions of already debunked falsehoods.

I mean really, how many times do we need to see you post: Kerry lied about Cambodia! New York Times sucks! Kerry lied to Congress! Kerry/Cambodia/Lies/9/11/mmmmm Iraq (I'm feeling hot)/Cambodia/CBS? Everyone knows CBS is a liberal hack network/Cambodia/Kerry/Kerry/Kerry(damn, I need to change my pants.)/Mmmmm, it's Kerry's fault the Republican military spending bill that failed to get our people body armor, passed./Cambodiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Bye

I don't see te point of an ignore list, really. It just means running away from a problem (yes, I'm looking at Chess Squares).

I did and you know what? Did you read what I've typing that has defuted what you've been saying or do I have to quote CNN again as well as my local paper, which is easier actually.
Go back to the last page and read the Bsoton Globe article which has another 30-year expert--Philip Bouffard--changing his mind after new information came out. This is one of the guys who told the NY Times on Thursday that he thought the documents couldn't have been produced in the early 70s on available technology, and has now said not only was he mistaken, but that the Air Force had tested the machines for purchase in 1969. Or are you so single-mindedly sold on the belief that they must be forgeries that you refuse to look at anything that might prove you wrong?

I've only dabbled in TeX so I am no expert, but this picture was quite convincing.

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif

Frame 1 was typed up in MS Word, frame 2 is the CBS document.

People are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what the experts say. Surely if nothing else we have learned that from these forums.

Go back to the last page and read the Bsoton Globe article which has another 30-year expert--Philip Bouffard--changing his mind after new information came out. This is one of the guys who told the NY Times on Thursday that he thought the documents couldn't have been produced in the early 70s on available technology, and has now said not only was he mistaken, but that the Air Force had tested the machines for purchase in 1969. Or are you so single-mindedly sold on the belief that they must be forgeries that you refuse to look at anything that might prove you wrong?

And one expert makes it factual? Come on Incertonia, I thought you were more intelligent than that. I could say that I'm changing my vote to John Kerry or that I decided to run for office. None of that actually matters. What does matter is that its actually been questioned that they are forgeries and one expert changing its tune is not proving them to be accurate. For every one of your links, two more pop up.

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like thy had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript --a smaller, raised "th" in the "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" --as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

I can quote things too.

And you've quoted one expert as well. So where does that leave us?

I'll tell you where--the burden of proof is still on your side. Any forensics "expert" is going to know it's a mistake to make definitive judgments based on photocopies of old documents, and even more so on scans of photocopies. At least my expert hasn't come out and said that they are or are not forgeries without having seen the documents--he's said that it was possible to create the documents in question within the time frame in question. Lines has said unequivocably that the documents are forgeries, without ever having actually examined the documents in question. You tell me which expert ought to have the greater credibility in this argument.

And you've quoted one expert as well. So where does that leave us?

Right back where we started. However, his son is also claiming them to be faked too and he served with his father.

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos. Gary Killian who served in the Guard with his father and reitred as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father woud have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the doucments are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

That's 2 independent document examiners and one personal friend. Your turn. :p

I'll tell you where--the burden of proof is still on your side. Any forensics "expert" is going to know it's a mistake to make definitive judgments based on photocopies of old documents, and even more so on scans of photocopies. At least my expert hasn't come out and said that they are or are not forgeries without having seen the documents--he's said that it was possible to create the documents in question within the time frame in question. Lines has said unequivocably that the documents are forgeries, without ever having actually examined the documents in question. You tell me which expert ought to have the greater credibility in this argument.

And I just returned your service.

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos. Gary Killian who served in the Guard with his father and reitred as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father woud have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the doucments are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

Anecdote and subjective opinion do not equal evidence. Ever. Next?

Anecdote and subjective opinion do not equal evidence. Ever. Next?

in all honesty, it would've violated every regulation in the book if he sugar coated his performance record, even in the Guard. And the other guy is in Personnel. Don't you think he'll have a good idea as what Killian style looks like?

Your right! Next?

in all honesty, it would've violated every regulation in the book if he sugar coated his performance record, even in the Guard. And the other guy is in Personnel. Don't you think he'll have a good idea as what Killian style looks like?

Your right! Next?I know that Killian's commander noted that the memos sounded like the sorts of things Killian was talking about and complaining about at the time, and if we're talking about TANG business, no one would be in a better position to know than Killian's CO--not Killian's son, wife, or subordinate officer.

Finally, none of this has answered my initial objection to your "expert" witness. Yes, she is a member of the American society of Forensics, and has been called as an expert in the past to testify on document veracity, but you still haven't explained why a forensics expert would make a definitive judgment on the authenticity of a set of documents without actually handling the documents themselves. You can't do real, legitimate forensics work on photocopies, or even worse, on scans of photocopies. You have to look at the originals, and none of these accusers thus far has done so. So why are you so eager to believe them, when their methodology is so obviously shoddy and open to accusation like this?

Oh yeah, and if you think that performance records don't get sugarcoated in the Guard, especially when the person in question is the child of a national political figure (George H. W. Bush was Ambassador to the UN at the time), then you're painfully naive, regulations or no. The military is as affected by political matters as any other section of society, perhaps more so, since the ability to play politics plays a large part in career advancement.

I've only dabbled in TeX so I am no expert, but this picture was quite convincing.

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif

Frame 1 was typed up in MS Word, frame 2 is the CBS document.
In all honesty, it isn't that hard to take a document and reproduce it in word.

But notice the 8 in August 18. It isn't on the centerline, which a word processor does by default and typewriters often error on.

I don't even know why we are debating this when we could be debating other issues.

However, in time this will sort itself out and in the end these will probably be proven fakes. As for sugar coating for politcially connected people, that explains why some nutcase officers make general rank above more deserving individuals.

This is not conceding an arguement so don't even think that.

I don't even know why we are debating this when we could be debating other issues.

However, in time this will sort itself out and in the end these will probably be proven fakes. As for sugar coating for politcially connected people, that explains why some nutcase officers make general rank above more deserving individuals.

This is not conceding an arguement so don't even think that.You're taking the easy way out, Corneliu, and I don't blame you. Panhandlia and I agreed last night that this election won't be decided on the basis of these memos' authenticity or not, so the only reason I insist on keeping on is to show how the media isn't biased toward a particular viewpoint.

If the media were as liberally biased as so many claim, wouldn't all of the other news services been crawling all over themselves to verify these documents? Instead, the other major media outlets saw a chance to question CBS's credibility, and perhaps make a dent in their ratings that they could step into. It's a corporate mindset, not a political one for the most part, and the sooner people realize that, the better off we'll be as a society.

According to CBS news and Dan Rather


:rolleyes: It was either that or "We admit that we, (icluding Dan Rather, the most biased left wing lunatic on a national news show) are blatent liars, attampting to subvert the election system by lying about the President." Which one would you choose? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: It was either that or "We admit that we, (icluding Dan Rather, the most biased left wing lunatic on a national news show) are blatent liars, attampting to subvert the election system by lying about the President." Which one would you choose? :rolleyes:I have hopes that one day you will add something intelligent and substantive to a thread. Some call me crazy, but I hold out hope just the same.

I have hopes that one day you will add something intelligent and substantive to a thread. Some call me crazy, but I hold out hope just the same.
I wouldn't hold my breath then, considering your idea of "intelligent and substanstive" is a moveon.org commercial. BAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! :rolleyes:

I wouldn't hold my breath then, considering your idea of "intelligent and substanstive" is a moveon.org commercial. BAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! :rolleyes:

I love how well you toe the party line. Do you have anything specific info on Moveon.org you know to be wrong? Even if you do, aren't there other things there that are true?

I hate Fox News, but even I know they don't lie all the time. Dispute the facts, not the origins. If you can't dispute the facts, then STFU!

I love how well you toe the party line. Do you have anything specific info on Moveon.org you know to be wrong? Even if you do, aren't there other things there that are true?

I hate Fox News, but even I know they don't lie all the time. Dispute the facts, not the origins. If you can't dispute the facts, then STFU!

Argue whatever you wish... allow others to argue what they wish... keep your "stfu" to yourself please.

Argue whatever you wish... allow others to argue what they wish... keep your "stfu" to yourself please.In all fairness, that's about the level of MunkeBrain's argumentative style most of the time.

The verdict is still out on whether they are fakes or not. Every thing else is just speculation.

The verdict is still out on whether they are fakes or not. Every thing else is just speculation.
Yep--although the gist of the argument, that they coldn't have been produced on the machines of the time, has been proven completely false. Wonder if that guy at defeatjohnjohn.com is going to pay up?

Argue whatever you wish... allow others to argue what they wish... keep your "stfu" to yourself please.

What a double standard.

According to CBS news and Dan Rather (Here is some of the transcript from the show):

*Rather: Typewriters did have superscript in 70s
*Rather: Bush National Guard records, provided by WH, have superscript
*Rather: Times New Roman available since 1931
*Expert says docs real, questions what is being examined by document critics
*Expert Marcel Matley says signatures on documents are authentic
*Robert Strong: docs are authentic
*Jim Moore: docs accurately reflect events, based on known authentic documents
*Jim Moore: White House has not discredited the documents, is relying on blogosphere to create doubt. WH probably knows documents are real.
*Rather: Story not solely based on documents -- interviews, etc.
*Rather: No evidence to show that docs are forgeries.

Yeah well maybe he served in the Alabama Air National Guard, but it did it at just the right time so he wouldnt be drafted for the war, the records indicate he didnt show up when he was supposed to and he got special treatment and he was kicked out for disobeying the rules.

The point is, Bush was incapible of fighting in the US for Alabama, Kerry WAS capable of fighting in the most dangerous place in Viet Nam.

Yep--although the gist of the argument, that they coldn't have been produced on the machines of the time, has been proven completely false. Wonder if that guy at defeatjohnjohn.com is going to pay up?

Well the problem is different experts disagree on that. Some say they could. Some say they couldn't. We may never know if they were fake or not. In the end, it shouldn't matter any more then these swift boat guys. Don't vote for your leader based on what they did 30+ years ago. Vote on whether you believe Bush has done a good job the last 4 years and if not if you trust Kerry based on his life long service to his country to be the president if you think Bush has failed. That seems to be what matters, not all this much to do about nothing of swift boat ads and Bush's service records in the guard. Here is what we do know that is fact. Kerry went to Vietnam when he didn't have to, Bush didn't. End of story in my opinion.

No, it came out this morning that the IBM Composer (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp) could have produced the document down to the last detail, and it was in general use at the time in question. Doesn't prove that the documents were genuine, but it pretty much blows out the claim that they couldn't have been made at the time.

Actually, if these memos turned out to be true, as Rather claims they are, then it would be front page news.

On all MAJOR NEWS SITES, they are still being questioned. I sincerely doubt that they are real. Hell in my local paper, the one here at the university, the late commander's son doubts his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's perfomance review. (Lancaster New Era)


An opinion from kid does not trump that of the official examination of an expert. I don't care if he is the son of someone important.

Besides, why would the right-wing media cover such a thing :)


Also he stated: "It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that.

A friend of the late commander who knew him for 17 years doubts he would do that too.


More opinion from people who weren't there. Not evidence of forgery.


Another expert, Sandra Ramsy Lines said that the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word softwar. Lines is a document expert and feloow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. She pointed to a superscript, a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron", as the evidence (slightly paraphrased but non-the-less from the same article.) She even went on to state that she is sure that they were computer generated.

Finally, the opinion of an expert.

If I were to forger an unbelievably important and controversial document that is supposed to be 30 years old and I was hatching a sophisticated plot to tarnish the reputation of a sitting president...would I be dumb enough to use Microsoft Word? I doubt an expert would be fooled so easily. Dan Rather isn't exactly a hack journalist and would have chosen someone he could trust.

I do not know this Lines woman and I do not know the guy Rather picked to help him out either. But I know better than to challenge Rather's integrity when it comes to journalism.

No, it came out this morning that the IBM Composer (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp) could have produced the document down to the last detail, and it was in general use at the time in question. Doesn't prove that the documents were genuine, but it pretty much blows out the claim that they couldn't have been made at the time.

Ah okay, I had not heard that. Well then there you go. :)

An opinion from kid does not trump that of the official examination of an expert. I don't care if he is the son of someone important.

So you don't think the commander's son would know about this issue? He knows his father and knows what he is like. Frankly I do trust his opinion but until these are proven true, and I don't think they are, its no use to battle back and forth over this/

Besides, why would the right-wing media cover such a thing :)

Because its news. Fox has reported on this as has CNN and MSNBC and NBC. All of them are questioning it and I don't consider CNN, MSNBC, or NBC as right wing. If it was true, it'll be blasted on their homepages as well as dominitating their cable news.

More opinion from people who weren't there. Not evidence of forgery.

your right, he's not an expert but a friend of the late commander and someone who works in Personnel at TANG!

Finally, the opinion of an expert.

Experts are everywhere working on this. Some are saying they are forgeries and others saying they are true. I doubt we'll get to the bottom of this but as Incertonia and Stephistan have said, the election shouldn't be based on something 30 years ago but by the present.

If I were to forger an unbelievably important and controversial document that is supposed to be 30 years old and I was hatching a sophisticated plot to tarnish the reputation of a sitting president...would I be dumb enough to use Microsoft Word? I doubt an expert would be fooled so easily. Dan Rather isn't exactly a hack journalist and would have chosen someone he could trust.

Depends on the expert actually. You'll be surprised. Frankly, Rather is a good journalist but now his reputation is in question. If they are proven to be accurate and not forgeries, then his reputation is safe, if they are found to be forgeries, then his reputation will be in ruins as will the network he works for.

I do not know this Lines woman and I do not know the guy Rather picked to help him out either. But I know better than to challenge Rather's integrity when it comes to journalism.

I don't know her either but I have heard of the Group she is part of. They are very good. As for challenging Rather's integrity, it is called into question at the moment but I'm sure he'll survive it if they are proven to be true and accurate. If they are proven to be forgeries, Jason Blair come to mind?

No, it came out this morning that the IBM Composer (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp) could have produced the document down to the last detail, and it was in general use at the time in question. Doesn't prove that the documents were genuine, but it pretty much blows out the claim that they couldn't have been made at the time.
This morning? Still behind the curve. The Shape of Days (http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html) blog addressed the Composer 2 days ago, including an attempted reproduction of the questioned documents (which your link doesn't have).

I don't think a son/daughter even wife/husband can know what their dead parent/spouse might of done or not with absolute certainty. We never know every thing about any one. My parents were married for almost 50 years before my dad passed away, you never know every thing about some one.

Maybe they have political reasons to say "he would of never done this or that" Maybe they're worried it will some how hurt his memory. You can't always know people's motives. If the experts are now saying those documents very well could of been made in that time period, I think the onus becomes on the people saying they're fake to prove it.

So you don't think the commander's son would know about this issue? He knows his father and knows what he is like. Frankly I do trust his opinion but until these are proven true, and I don't think they are, its no use to battle back and forth over this/


Actually, its easy not to know what its like at Daddy's work, or even to know much about you're own father. It really is opinion. Nothing else.


Because its news. Fox has reported on this as has CNN and MSNBC and NBC. All of them are questioning it and I don't consider CNN, MSNBC, or NBC as right wing. If it was true, it'll be blasted on their homepages as well as dominitating their cable news.


You would be surprised at the amount of news that doesn't get on CNN, etc. but the rest of the world gets to see. Even CNN has a filter that is not in place by any set doctrine by the station. Its more of a mentality that leads to the sterilization of reality to encourage more people to watch; although I will admit CNN and some others have been trying to shake this behavior. I think it happened when cable news began; it no longer was a matter of integrity as it was a matter of selling commercial time.

Sadly, everytime they try to say something that would make the US look bad (especially this administration) they get lambasted with the 'radical left-wing media' tag. It certainly doesn't help.


your right, he's not an expert but a friend of the late commander and someone who works in Personnel at TANG!


So?

He works in Personnel (not a forensic document expert) and being a friend of someone important doesn't make you an expert either.

Maybe next time they should ask the opinion of the janitors at TANG.


Experts are everywhere working on this. Some are saying they are forgeries and others saying they are true. I doubt we'll get to the bottom of this but as Incertonia and Stephistan have said, the election shouldn't be based on something 30 years ago but by the present.


I agree. But it was the Swift Boat for Truth guys who restarted this old debate by bringing Vietnam back. Just don't blame Kerry. He doesn't give them money.

And tit-for-tat is fair play ;)


Depends on the expert actually. You'll be surprised. Frankly, Rather is a good journalist but now his reputation is in question. If they are proven to be accurate and not forgeries, then his reputation is safe, if they are found to be forgeries, then his reputation will be in ruins as will the network he works for.


I wouldn't say his reputation is in question. Only people who don't want to believe the memo is real are saying that, and they have to find evidence to support that belief before they start questioning Rather.

I post this link (that someone else did earlier)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

That's a lot of good research. Good luck proving it is a forgery.


I don't know her either but I have heard of the Group she is part of. They are very good. As for challenging Rather's integrity, it is called into question at the moment but I'm sure he'll survive it if they are proven to be true and accurate. If they are proven to be forgeries, Jason Blair come to mind?

Are you honestly comparing Dan Rather to Jason Blair? Honestly?

As for the 'th' thing, the probable answer was given in the link above.

Even experts can be wrong, or at least not have all of the needed information. I have no idea how much examination of the memo she did, but apparently the person who did the article did a great amount more.

What a double standard.

Dont see how it's a double standard... Im saying that one should let others argue what they wish.. including me letting you argue what you wish. It's the "stfu" that I was objecting to. Not necessary, and lends nothing to your point. It's just a matter of you attempting to quell another's right to free speech.

I agree. But it was the Swift Boat for Truth guys who restarted this old debate by bringing Vietnam back. Just don't blame Kerry. He doesn't give them money.
I could be wrong, but that's not how I saw it. What I saw was Kerry campaigning hard on his Vietnam service as a campaign choice ("Reporting for duty." and all that), presumably as a way to be a counter-point to Bush's less credible service in that period. Every speech for awhile was about Vietnam.

If Kerry had decided that "less is more" when it comes to reliving his past service then if a group like the SBVfT came to hammer him they would be political unknowns. But he put it on the agenda.

Again, I could be wrong, but that's my perception of how this campaign went in that regard.

I could be wrong, but that's not how I saw it. What I saw was Kerry campaigning hard on his Vietnam service as a campaign choice ("Reporting for duty." and all that), presumably as a way to be a counter-point to Bush's less credible service in that period. Every speech for awhile was about Vietnam.

If Kerry had decided that "less is more" when it comes to reliving his past service then if a group like the SBVfT came to hammer him they would be political unknowns. But he put it on the agenda.

Again, I could be wrong, but that's my perception of how this campaign went in that regard.

Nah. The Swift Boats brought it up majorly. Until they appeared what happened 30 years ago really didn't matter.

Kerry was only showing that he was a good soldier with the 'reporting for duty' thing to try to disprove that he was a 'wishy-washy liberal'. It made him look strong. Plain and simple. It wasn't a basis for his campaign. Kerry himself said past military service shouldn't matter in the selection of a president.

Attack your enemy's strengths if you want him defeated. Its a very effective strategy and Kerry has a strong military record, easily trumping Bush's. Kerry took the bait and it seems to be working against him. SBVfT not only attacked, they attacked brutally. The fact that their testimonials have been disproven didn't budge things one inch.

In the end, it was the attack itself and the thoughts of Kerry being an iffy soldier that they put in everyone's heads that mattered. The factual basis of the attacks didn't matter. All they needed was to plant that seed of doubt.

It's the power of suggestion. That's what makes it an effective attack method.

What everyone forgets is that this is supposedly from a "personal records" file. And the man isn't around anymore. So how exactly did they get them?

Specially since his wife and son not only say they knew nothing about it (which leaves the only other way to get into his personal records as a break in or some other shady stunt) but, also call these memo's fake.

How many people had that expensive IBM machine available for "personal records?"

The one question none of the people who are calling these forgeries have yet to deal with has to do with how these experts who claim they're forgeries can claim that without having actually examined the documents in question. Forensics is a pretty exacting science, but the one thing it absolutely requires is an examination of the evidence itself. Thus far, all these claims have been made about 1) photocopies of the originals and/or 2) scans of photocopies of the originals, which are third generation and are useless in forensic studies.

What everyone forgets is that this is supposedly from a "personal records" file. And the man isn't around anymore. So how exactly did they get them?

Specially since his wife and son not only say they knew nothing about it (which leaves the only other way to get into his personal records as a break in or some other shady stunt) but, also call these memo's fake.

How many people had that expensive IBM machine available for "personal records?"

I would assume the Freedom of Information Act. And after a person dies I think that increases, not decreases, the ability to get at these records. If I remember right, the FBI only releases files it has on people after their deaths.

I don't know much about the details so I can't say much more than that.

I've used 'expensive' computers to write e-mails to friends before. At work too ;)

High cost doesn't mean you can't use it. And it WAS work-related (unlike my e-mailing...)

And yes it was a popular model used by the government :)

for the last bloody time

until the EXPERTS, ie the people HIRED to decide this, declare the documents fake or forgeries, all of you egotistical republicans can stick your opinion on the matter in your ear

What everyone forgets is that this is supposedly from a "personal records" file. And the man isn't around anymore. So how exactly did they get them?

Specially since his wife and son not only say they knew nothing about it (which leaves the only other way to get into his personal records as a break in or some other shady stunt) but, also call these memo's fake.

How many people had that expensive IBM machine available for "personal records?"
Did you read about that "expensive" machine? It was an extremely popular model that was marketed to the government and was bought by the government. Furthermore, what do you think personal records files are? When people die, do you think all the various paperwork and other things they kept disappear? Just as when your parents die you have to go and collect their tax materials, and other business papers they have, this man may well have kept military files locked away somewhere. When he died, it is likely either the family (if they were with civilian files) or the government (if it was purely military files) took them, and very likely promptly forgot about them. The freedom of information act would allow anyone researching Bush's records to discover these if they were in government hands, and their existance would be found no matter who had them.

If you know a paralegal whom works on governmental matters, I suggest you ask them how to find a document on just about anything. Its not that hard, and these things would, once proven useful, be found immediately.

The one question none of the people who are calling these forgeries have yet to deal with has to do with how these experts who claim they're forgeries can claim that without having actually examined the documents in question. Forensics is a pretty exacting science, but the one thing it absolutely requires is an examination of the evidence itself. Thus far, all these claims have been made about 1) photocopies of the originals and/or 2) scans of photocopies of the originals, which are third generation and are useless in forensic studies.

True. Only those who examine the original have the right to say anything about it, good or bad.

From what I've read from links in this thread the type-face argument has been finished. Moving on...

A chemical analysis of the paper should prove it age. Artificial aging techniques should be no problem for an expert to identify. I have no idea if this has been done. Proving its age would be the death-knell to this debate. Has that been done yet? I have no clue :p

This is great. The Democrats are so tied up with the forgeries, Kerry is going to burn when CBS caves.
Perhaps you are right? Maybe the people should concentrate on Bush's failed "service" record for the past 4 years as President?

Perhaps you are right? Maybe the people should concentrate on Bush's failed "service" record for the past 4 years as President?
That's what Stephistan and I have been saying for a while now. Panhandlia agrees, although he doesn't consider Bush's record to be a failed one. All of this is just distraction from the real issues of the day--the economy, job creation, health care, the budget deficit, and of course, Iraq, where another 60 people died in Baghdad and over 200 were injured while much of the world wondered just what the hell happened in North Korea on Thursday.

Just because CBS comes out and says they are not fake, does not actually mean they are not fake. Of course, CBS and Rather are going to come out and defend themselves, their Credibility is on the line right now.

But if you actually watched their report on Friday to defend themselves, you'll see how very selective they are with evidence. They choose a few analysts, the SAME analysts that said the documents were not fakes in the begining. And then they interview this Author guy, who is an avid Bush-Hater. Can you say, Conflict of Interest?


The fact stands that you can open up your Word Processor, and type the memo word for word, and ALL the alignment is the same. Not to mention the quotes that are not the same type of quotes from typewriters of the time.


Now, people say, Well there was this one typewriter that could do it. Yeah, there was. And it was top of the line, and expensive. Why would the Air Force by such a type writer for a Commander of the National Guard, when he can use his current type writer just fine?



AS WELL AS THE MEMO FORMATTING, there are OTHER criticisms. The Widow, and son of the Commander have come out and said that these memos are not in his nature to keep. He never kept notes around. AND the tone and description of Bush in these memos are different then they are in all the other memos.


Then you have the fact that handwriting analysts, say that the signature does not match on the memos.


And then you have the fact that the memo mentions a person as "sugar coating" in the national guard. The problem is, that this person was discharged from the service a YEAR earlier.



It's all still up in the air, whether these are true or not. But now that major media is picking it up, all their analysts seem to be thinking that theres something fishy about these documents as well.

Don't believe everything CBS says.

in all honesty, it would've violated every regulation in the book if he sugar coated his performance record, even in the Guard. And the other guy is in Personnel. Don't you think he'll have a good idea as what Killian style looks like?

Your right! Next?
Perhaps that is why the "CYA" is on the document? As in Cover Your Ass?

That is my toss in.....

Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

Analysts who have examined the documents focus on several facets of their typography, among them the use of a curved apostrophe, a raised, or superscript, ''th," and the proportional spacing between the characters -- spacing which varies with the width of the letters. In older typewriters, each letter was alloted the same space.

Those who doubt the documents say those typographical elements would not have been commonly available at the time of Bush's service. But such characters were common features on electric typewriters of that era, the Globe determined through interviews with specialists and examination of documents from the period. In fact, one such raised ''th," used to describe a Guard unit, the 187th, appears in a document in Bush's official record that the White House made public earlier this year.

snip

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM.

''You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.

snip

White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended the president's service record, but offered no view on whether the CBS documents are authentic.


Turns out that story is WRONG. The media misquoted Dr. Bouffard. And he's pissed. What's sad, is that CBS picked up this story to defend itself, even though it's not accurate. http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php


HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe!
INDC EXCLUSIVE!! MUST CREDIT INDC!!

I just interviewed Dr. Bouffard again, and he's angry that the Globe has misrepresented him. He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted, and he wants me to correct the record. He did not change his mind, and he and his colleagues are becoming more certain that these documents are forgeries.

Instead of providing my analysis of our conversation, I'm largely going to transcribe his unaltered quotes (please note that he's a rather colorful, engaging older gentleman):

(I'm dynamically updating as I transcribe quotes, so keep refreshing)

"What the Boston Globe did now sort of pisses me off, because now I have people calling me and e-mailing me, and calling me names, saying that I changed my mind. I did not change my mind at all!"

"I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it takes to clear this up, through your internet site, or whatever."

"All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!"

"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it."

"But the more information we get and the more my colleagues look at this, we're more convinced that there are significant differences between the type of the (IBM) Composer that was available and the questionable document."

"The (new Selectric) typefaces sent to me invalidated the theory about the foot on the four (originally reported to INDC), but after looking at this more, there are still many more things that say this is bogus."

"... there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ..."

"More things were looked into; more things about IBM options. Even if you bought special (superscripting) keys, it's not right. There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter."

"Any form of kerning may be critical (he hasn't rendered a definitive verdict if there is a form of kerning yet). If there is any type of kerning, it obviously isn't a typewriter or it's definitely a typeset document."

On the Globe and others:

"You talk to someone on the phone and it comes out different than you said!"

On the source of the 1969 Air Force Supply Memo:

Dr. Bouffard received an e-mail from the address of Roy Huber, a noted retired forensic analyst in Ottawa, but a response indicated that it was Lynn Huber.

"I presumed that it was a relative of Roy. The document said that there are fonts from the IBM that don't have the foot on the '4.'"

The e-mail also contained an attachment to possible Selectric fonts that indicated that the "4" had a foot, and the Air Force memo that indicated that the military purchase of such a machine was a possibility.

But since having had more time to analyze the fonts of the Selectric:

"We've looked into more and more IBM options and ... there are all kinds of things that say this isn't a typewriter."

UPDATE: These are all the transcribable quotes that Dr. Bouffard gave me at this time. More as the story develops.

I provide his words, you decide ... but I have come to the definitive conclusion that the Boston Globe misrepresented their main source's testimony to stunningly misleading effect.

Whether or not the docs are even forgeries or not is almost secondary in the media narrative at this point. The fact is, Dr. Bouffard was used as the main source to write the following headline in the Boston Globe:

Authenticity backed on Bush documents

Square that headline with the quotes from their source that are listed above.

That's what Stephistan and I have been saying for a while now. Panhandlia agrees, although he doesn't consider Bush's record to be a failed one. All of this is just distraction from the real issues of the day--the economy, job creation, health care, the budget deficit, and of course, Iraq, where another 60 people died in Baghdad and over 200 were injured while much of the world wondered just what the hell happened in North Korea on Thursday.

Zeppistan said some thing earlier to me that made a lot of sense.. the Republicans must be loving all this, once again they are able to distract the debate. They are once again able to let this situation which has nothing to do with the election over shadow the real debate and that's Bush's failures in the last 4 years.

Zeppistan said some thing earlier to me that made a lot of sense.. the Republicans must be loving all this, once again they are able to distract the debate. They are once again able to let this situation which has nothing to do with the election over shadow the real debate and that's Bush's failures in the last 4 years.


A heavily left-slanting news network is responsible for all this nonsense.

Turns out that story is WRONG. The media misquoted Dr. Bouffard. And he's pissed. What's sad, is that CBS picked up this story to defend itself, even though it's not accurate. http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php.

You do realize you're sourcing some one's blog/journal right? *LOL*

Not exactly credible.. :p

Zeppistan said some thing earlier to me that made a lot of sense.. the Republicans must be loving all this, once again they are able to distract the debate. They are once again able to let this situation which has nothing to do with the election over shadow the real debate and that's Bush's failures in the last 4 years.
Of course they're loving it--an article from Salon that I linked to earlier shows that they're behind a large part of it. Not Bush's campaign personally, mind you, but the same people who do work for the Swifties, for places like Regnery publishing, etc. This has been driven by Republican supporters for a couple of reasons.

One, it lets them cast the so-called "liberal media" as untrustworthy, and so if and when other revelations come out about whatever other stupid shit the Bush campaign has done, they'll be able to point and say "look, they're got it out for us, so you can't believe them."

Two, it's rhetorical sleight of hand--keep your eye on the memos and you don't see that your neighbor's job just got outsourced to the Phillippines, or that your other neighbor's kid just died in Iraq, or that the Taliban is back or that Osama Bin Laden hasn't been captured.

I only hope that the American people are able to see through it.

You do realize you're sourcing some one's blog/journal right? *LOL*

Not exactly credible.. :p


Just because its a blog does not mean its unreliable. It's the blogs that immediatley picked up on this story in the first place, before big media cared to realize that these documents may not be real.

You have to realize that not all blogs are people that live in a shack in the middle of nowhere, making up crazy things.


Many people are actually involved in politics, or journalism, or education, and they have the contacts to get interviews, like the one above.

A heavily left-slanting news network is responsible for all this nonsense.

Yeah, and the Bush Admin couldn't be happier :D

Actually, the right wingers seem to be doing a lot of work keeping it in view as well.

Of course they're loving it--an article from Salon that I linked to earlier shows that they're behind a large part of it. Not Bush's campaign personally, mind you, but the same people who do work for the Swifties, for places like Regnery publishing, etc. This has been driven by Republican supporters for a couple of reasons.

One, it lets them cast the so-called "liberal media" as untrustworthy, and so if and when other revelations come out about whatever other stupid shit the Bush campaign has done, they'll be able to point and say "look, they're got it out for us, so you can't believe them."

Two, it's rhetorical sleight of hand--keep your eye on the memos and you don't see that your neighbor's job just got outsourced to the Phillippines, or that your other neighbor's kid just died in Iraq, or that the Taliban is back or that Osama Bin Laden hasn't been captured.

I only hope that the American people are able to see through it.



Blah Blah Blah, Whine Whine Whine. Contrary to what people think, many Americans KNOW that we're in a war right now. And we KNOW that people die. We KNOW that we havn't captured Osama. And we KNOW that our economy isn't the best.


The difference is that the majority of us KNOW that the war in Iraq is just, and that we MUST stick it out. We know that finding Osama is DIFFICULT, but that he will be found eventually. We also KNOW that capturing Osama won't really mean anything to the war on Terror. Another person will just replace him. Capturing Osama is just our own way of getting revenge for all the shit he has done.

Blah Blah Blah, Whine Whine Whine. Contrary to what people think, many Americans KNOW that we're in a war right now. And we KNOW that people die. We KNOW that we havn't captured Osama. And we KNOW that our economy isn't the best.


The difference is that the majority of us KNOW that the war in Iraq is just, and that we MUST stick it out. We know that finding Osama is DIFFICULT, but that he will be found eventually. We also KNOW that capturing Osama won't really mean anything to the war on Terror. Another person will just replace him. Capturing Osama is just our own way of getting revenge for all the shit he has done.
The majority believe the War on Iraq is "just"?

Hmmm capturing Osama doesn't "really mean anything to the war on Terror"?

Wow, how the story changes? I guess that while the "mission" remains unaccomplished, it is important to ignore reality so that it does not conflict with Bush's image as a war President? Bush has struck out, and it is time for a new batter. :eek:

The majority believe the War on Iraq is "just"?

Hmmm capturing Osama doesn't "really mean anything to the war on Terror"?

Wow, how the story changes? I guess that while the "mission" remains unaccomplished, it is important to ignore reality so that it does not conflict with Bush's image as a war President? Bush has struck out, and it is time for a new batter. :eek:


Yes, Polls have gone up and down, on whether it was the right thing or not. But it always hovers around 50%. Most people are not clamoring in the streets to get our troops out of Iraq.


And come on now. Do you really think capturing Osama will bring terrorism to their knees? All over the world terrorists will come out of hiding, and put their weapons down. "Oh, you got us! Good game guys, Good Game."


Of course not. Our quest for Osama is to bring him to justice, but not really to stop terrorism.

Our quest for Osama is to bring him to justice, but not really to stop terrorism.
That is not what Bush said and the rest of the world heard. :rolleyes:

Man, are the liberals of America desperate. Forging documents, lying on 60 Minutes, Comparing Fox News to Pravda. Keep up the good work though, you are helping us more than you know.

(Ugh! I can't believe I have to type this out twice. Oh well, shorter version...)

Blah Blah Blah, Whine Whine Whine. Contrary to what people think, many Americans KNOW that we're in a war right now.


When in the Hell did anyone say Americans were oblivious to their being in a war?

Actually, I thought they rather liked the idea.


And we KNOW that people die. We KNOW that we haven't captured Osama. And we KNOW that our economy isn't the best.


Then you must KNOW that the current administration is responsible for all that.


The difference is that the majority of us KNOW that the war in Iraq is just, and that we MUST stick it out.


"Just" doesn't mean a damn thing when actions are done through ignorance. Giving a big glass of ice water to someone who has heat stroke may seem like a good idea but you could send them into shock and kill them.

If we stay in Iraq, we lose. If we leave, we lose. It's a no-win scenario. Stay, and the US be weakened militarily for years to come and many more will die. Leave and we only steel the resolve of the Islamists. I say, might was well bring the troops back if we are going to lose. Less dead.


We know that finding Osama is DIFFICULT, but that he will be found eventually.


Actually, I'm betting he'll be 'found' around November :D

Another no-win scenario: capturing OBL.

Capture him and we get our "Revenge" but we only create a martyr. Let him die of old age and we are robbed of 'closure'. Look at the Jesus and Christianity model if you want to know the effect of killing a movement's leader.

(Funny thing about the Jesus model: Persectution of Christians ended when Rome adopted Christianity and became the Holy Roman Empire - Enter Catholics. Simply, in order to win against a movement you can't defeat on a 'war front' and with minimal losses you have to adopt their ways. To win the war on terrorism the US would have to convert to Islam. Weird, eh? :D )


We also KNOW that capturing Osama won't really mean anything to the war on Terror. Another person will just replace him. Capturing Osama is just our own way of getting revenge for all the shit he has done.

"Revenge" won't do a damn thing. Under Bush (and at this point, probably under ANYONE) the US stands to be in a perpetual state of war. And then there is the 'martyr' aspect of getting our hands on OBL.

If the whole military was used in Afghanistan and ONLY Afghanistan we may have defeated a mere criminal organization before it became a movement. The war in Iraq turned it into a movement. Now, due to the fact that our response in Afghanistan was slow and under-manned OBL has a huge head start.

The US can't win.

Yes, Polls have gone up and down, on whether it was the right thing or not. But it always hovers around 50%. Most people are not clamoring in the streets to get our troops out of Iraq.


And come on now. Do you really think capturing Osama will bring terrorism to their knees? All over the world terrorists will come out of hiding, and put their weapons down. "Oh, you got us! Good game guys, Good Game."


Of course not. Our quest for Osama is to bring him to justice, but not really to stop terrorism.

Mission Impossible :D

A real typesetting expert issues his verdict:

http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm

Ah, a good argument has been made. (damn tiring to read though)

It seems to stand behind whether or not Killian could use the complicated expensive typewriter and a few details in the typeset (those curly quotations).

What were the other major disputable points? (If any)

No more links PLEASE!

(of course the possibilty exists he could have written it down and had someone else type it up)

This is actually turning out to be fairly interesting. Too bad its about the most boring subject on the planet.

FONT! YAY! :mp5:

HERE's the major points (whether or not they can be valid is debatable)

========

28 Reasons the 'Bush Memos' reported on by CBS are faudulent:

Courtesy of Free Republic


1 -- Proportional spacing not generally available

2 -- Superscripts not generally available

3 -- Small "th" single element not generally avail.

4 -- 'Smart' quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available

5 -- The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers

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

7 -- Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it.

8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.

9 -- Words 'run over' consistent with word processor

10 -- May be a Times Roman or similar font not generally available then (per Haas Atlas)

11 - Signature looks faked (do not match)

12 - No errors and whiteout

13 - No letterhead

14 - Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor

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

16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match

17 - Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.

18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist

19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston

20 - It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.

21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"

22 - Subject matter bizarre

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

24 - Kerning was not available

25 - In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
26 - Language not generally used by military

27 - Not signed or initialed

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

Ah, a good argument has been made. (damn tiring to read though)

It seems to stand behind whether or not Killian could use the complicated expensive typewriter and a few details in the typeset (those curly quotations).

What were the other major disputable points? (If any)

No more links PLEASE!

(of course the possibilty exists he could have written it down and had someone else type it up)

Actually, the critical point is that there is no way Killian or any pool typist could have obtained and combined various technologies required to produce a near pixel-perfect match with a MS Word copy. All of the technologies demonstrated were either nonexistant, in development or prohibitively expensive at the time.

Actually, the critical point is that there is no way Killian or any pool typist could have obtained and combined various technologies required to produce a near pixel-perfect match with a MS Word copy. All of the technologies demonstrated were either nonexistant, in development or prohibitively expensive at the time.


That's certainly more succinct than what I posted.

NOTE: I am amazed I spelled 'succinct' correctly on the first try :)

Actually, the critical point is that there is no way Killian or any pool typist could have obtained and combined various technologies required to produce a near pixel-perfect match with a MS Word copy. All of the technologies demonstrated were either nonexistant, in development or prohibitively expensive at the time.
no, actually that's not a point at all, since study of the text shows it isn't anything close to "pixel-perfect," unless you compress the text so small that you fool yourself into thinking you've made a match. when you expand it to normal or slightly larger sizes it becomes very clear that there are huge differences.

Stop aking theads about Vietnam records. The issues of today are what matters. I'm not defending Bush here, just highlighting what's important.

Actually, the critical point is that there is no way Killian or any pool typist could have obtained and combined various technologies required to produce a near pixel-perfect match with a MS Word copy. All of the technologies demonstrated were either nonexistant, in development or prohibitively expensive at the time.

The counterpoint to the MS word argument is that the "near pixel perfect" match was no such thing. The 4's and 8's are different, and the CBS and MS Word document were compared at low resolution, making them look more similar that, in fact, they were.

I am pledging to keep my mind open. Will you do so as well?

You know what's really sad?

We are all learning about fonts, people. Actually LEARNING stuff about FONTS.

I think I've done enough to encourage this. I'll slink away...

This is actually turning out to be fairly interesting. Too bad its about the most boring subject on the planet.

FONT! YAY! :mp5:

HERE's the major points (whether or not they can be valid is debatable)

========

28 Reasons the 'Bush Memos' reported on by CBS are faudulent:

Courtesy of Free Republic


1 -- Proportional spacing not generally available apparently it was available on a model widelty available to the military

2 -- Superscripts not generally available se preceding comment

3 -- Small "th" single element not generally avail. ditto

4 -- 'Smart' quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available ditto

5 -- The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers also commonly happens when copies are faxed around, as in a news environment

6 -- Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name. perhaps because it was personal memo?


7 -- Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. in what way?

8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471. perhaps because it was personal memo?


9 -- Words 'run over' consistent with word processor

10 -- May be a Times Roman or similar font not generally available then (per Haas Atlas) it was available, and on a typewriter commonly used by the military

11 - Signature looks faked (do not match)see comment below where the claim is made that there is no signature

12 - No errors and whiteout there wouldn't be, if the letter was transcribed by a clerk, also, the original documents have not been reviewed, so anyone who claims 'there's no whiteout!' is lying.

13 - No letterhead perhaps because it was personal memo?


14 - Exact match for Microsoft Word Processorno, it's a fairly close match when compared at low-resolution

15 - Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s. these are copies and faxed copies. No one's seen the size of the paper on the original documents (except Rather's sources and experts.)

16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match this point is disputed, There is another site (already referenced my many) that shows the documents do not match up

17 - Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.so, the clerk who typed it did not like hyphens. This hardly constitutes proof of anything

18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist have not seen this anywhere else. reserving judgement

19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston have not seen this anywhere else. reserving judgement

20 - It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer. and yet people did it all the time

21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt" perhaps because it was personal memo?


22 - Subject matter bizarre not if he was writing it to cover his ass in case anything came out?

23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433. have not seen this anywhere else. reserving judgement

24 - Kerning was not available another site states that no kerning is evident on the document anyway

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


26 - Language not generally used by militaryperhaps because it was a personal memo?

27 - Not signed or initialed how can the signatures not match if there is no signature?

28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo. perhaps because it was personal memo?

red content added by me

Game set match ladies and gentlemen. IBM says that they are real.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/12/17619/7616

Game set match ladies and gentlemen. IBM says that they are real.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/12/17619/7616

Dude, just because IBM says they are real doesn't make it so! You should know that. IBM could say it but about a dozen experts can say they are not. This issue will never be resolved and no one will really know if they are real.

Now, what are the major news outlets saying?

Dude, just because IBM says they are real doesn't make it so! You should know that. IBM could say it but about a dozen experts can say they are not. This issue will never be resolved and no one will really know if they are real.

Now, what are the major news outlets saying?

Well.. the argument about the super script seems to be closed any way. In fact they could of very well made the documents in the time period as stated.

The major news outlets are saying they don't know if they are fakes or not, but it now appears that they could be real.

I suppose it comes down to the same case as the swift boat vet issue, credibility of the people involved. It's no longer a case of could they be real, because we now know they could. It becomes a credibility issue now.

Well.. the argument about the super script seems to be closed any way. In fact they could of very well made the documents in the time period as stated.

The major news outlets are saying they don't know if they are fakes or not, but it now appears that they could be real.

I suppose it comes down to the same case as the swift boat vet issue, credibility of the people involved. It's no longer a case of could they be real, because we now know they could. It becomes a credibility issue now.

Steph, for once, I can agree with you on some of the points you made! Don't die of a heart attack!

Steph, for once, I can agree with you on some of the points you made! Don't die of a heart attack!

*Drops Dead* :D

Game set match ladies and gentlemen. IBM says that they are real.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/12/17619/7616

you really need to work on your reading comp skills.

based on your link

1) It isnt IBM saying anything, its some guy who used to work for IBM fixing typewriters.

2) All he is claiming that is that typewriters existed that could produce the spacing and something about a custom key(whatever that means).


From the links in this thread, we ALREADY know that typewriters existed that could produce the spacing, and the superscript.

problems

1) to get the spacing, you have to type each line twice. The first time to figure out the line width(nothing is printed at this stage), then you have to adjust a dial to set the spacing, then you have to type the line again.

2) to get the superscript, you have to change the typewriter "ball", do some math, shift the page up, type the "th", shift the paper down, swap the ball again to the original.

This guys wife and son have already said he wasnt a good typist.

So, we have to believe a guy who isnt a good typist did all this work just he could get proportional spacing and a small superscripted "th" just to write a personal memo???

Does that sort of behaviour seem reasonable to anyone? Even if the guy was a brilliant typist.

And lets not even address that this typewriter was the absolute top of the line.