Bush Service Memos Questioned 619
Twirlip of the Mists writes "Last night, CBS News released a set of memos dated 1972 and 1973 that are purported to raise questions about President Bush's National Guard service. Some are saying those memos might have been produced with a computer. Blogger Scott Johnson ran with the story first this morning, raising questions about the typography of the memos. Blogger Charles Johnson (no relation) went one step further, actually reproducing one of the memos in its entirety using Microsoft Word's default settings.
Matt Drudge is running the story now with a link to a CNS News article that includes quotes from typography experts at font foundries Afga Monotype and Bitstream.
There's a round-up of key facts about the story on this blogger's web site." The experts in the CNS News story and others could come to no conclusion, and even if the documents are not originals or photocopies of originals, that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't faithfully retyped copies of originals. CBS continues to assert the documents are authentic.
Try this (Score:5, Informative)
I've made a superimposed image [vt.edu] of Word vs. the documents. They have been lined up according to the period after the '1' in the first paragraph. The 'originals' are in red, the Word version in blue.
Re:Try this (Score:2)
Re:Try this (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.gu
Dr Phil Bouffard, one of the top experts in the field, is nearly conclusively certain that they're forged.
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000851.php [indcjournal.com]
MSNBC is reporting experts in several areas who say they're forged.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5963843/ [msn.com]
The Washington Post has a number of experts who strongly believe the documents were forged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A99
And you've got Kos.
Read the stories. Think for yourself.
And for crying out loud learn to post a link. There's even a little crib in the edit window on Slashdot, for God's sake.
Re:Try this (Score:2)
Some IBM Selectrics had proportional spacing. (Score:3, Interesting)
See this analysis [slashdot.org]. There were IBM Selectrics that had proportional spacing.
Most people now know nothing of typesetting, because their computers do a better job than the $40,000 to $1,100,000 typesetters ever did. However, those who know about typesetting know that Microsoft Word and the old Selectrics are imitating the same font. Both are trying to look like typesetting.
Times Roman, for example, was designed for the London Times in the 1770s, for example.
IBM put some quirky symbols on the Select
Re:Try this (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that isn't the same font. The spacing is completely different (monospaced rather than proportional), the 4 is also a different type ("open" in your link, "closed" in the CBS scan).
you're a fucking liar.
Perhaps you should have compared the two fonts properly before making that claim.
Re:Try this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Try this (Score:5, Insightful)
And another thing while I'm on it, gettting out some of the older paperwork while previewing my post - I notice that rarely is "TH" added, I do see it in a few memoranda I have still, but it is always capitalized, or assumed.
For instance I served in the 35th Maintenance Squadron, 35th Logistics Group, 35th Fighter Wing, MIsawa, Airbase, Japan - almost every document from there is formally typed:
35 MXS, 35 LG, 35 FW, MISAWA, AB, JAPAN.
Looks fishy as hell to me considering it's a lot easier to tack on "th" in a Word Processor compared to an old gov't issue Typewriter.
Re:Try this (Score:3)
Re:Try this (Score:5, Informative)
I then scanned it back in [xenoveritas.org] and wound up with a document that looked surprisingly similar to the "original document [xenoveritas.org]." Specically, look at the "187th." It's practically identical.
Oh, and for added fun, try this animation [xenoveritas.org] I created showing a copy in Word fading in with the PDF. Note that the PDF is ever so slightly tilted, so things don't line up quite correctly after the first line. But the animation makes it very clear that the two are very similar.
Anyway, to sum up:
- Original document [xenoveritas.org] (mirrored on my site)
- Scanned copy I made [xenoveritas.org] - this is not an original, it is a copy I typed in Word, printed, and scanned back in to a PDF
Very supicious.Re:Try this (Score:2)
Re:Try this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Try this (Score:5, Funny)
Ain't just a river in Egypt, y'all.
Re:Try this (Score:2)
Your comments about what was and was not possible for typewriters of the time have already been refuted by many other posters, so I won't bother adding to it. I will, however, point out that your belief that TNR is a product of the Eighties is so ignorant as to make you not worth taking seriously
Re:Try this (Score:2)
A printed copy of the memo whipped out in Word matches the PDF supplied by CBS News perfectly, once you do things like straighten it to compensate for the distressed look of the CBS News PDFs.
It doesn't just hold up, Daniel. It's a fucking out-of-the-park home run.
Your comments about what was and was not possible for typewriters of the time have already been refuted by many other posters
Simply untrue. Be honest. Did you click ONE LINK
Re:Try this (Score:3, Informative)
I posted this somewhere else, but just compare the original [xenoveritas.org] (note: mirrored on my site) with a scanned copy [xenoveritas.org] I made. The copy is simply a retyped version of the memo [xenoveritas.org] that I printed to a laser printer and then scanned using a sheet-feeding scanner - similar to a fax machine.
They look like they're identical, including the 187th part. The only thing my copy's missing is the dust and dirt on the paper.
Re:Try this (Score:3, Insightful)
There's this element called "lead", see, and people used to carve backwards letters out of it, arrange them in words and rows and then smear ink on them and smash them on paper. Artisans created unique and interesting font designs to make specific applications of the technology pleasing to the eye, easy to read, and unique.
Re:Try this (Score:3, Insightful)
Times of London. Nice try, tho. The New York Times doesn't even use Times. They use Imperial for their body type and a custom-designed Cheltenham for headlines and decks.
And no, if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I'm saying that these memos were typeset in not just any Times but in Microsoft Times New Roman. Positively identified by a forensic documents expert around 3:00 EDT today and subsequently confirmed by
Re:Try this (Score:3, Insightful)
I see no evidence of Kerning. The spacing looks to me like it is typewritten, not computer type
Re:Try this (Score:3, Informative)
It was EXTREMELY uncommon. The superscript "th" type ball was only available from IBM by a custom order. It was machined to order and sold for an outlandish price.
And the typewriter it fit into could not do proportional letterspacing.
having a proportional printing typewriter was not uncommon either
It was very uncommon; you mean to say that it was not unheard-of. But the typewriters that could do proportional letterspacing did not have removabl
Times New Roman was designed in 1932. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Times New Roman typeface was designed by Stanley Morison and Victor Lardent [linotype.com] in 1932. Everything that produces proportional characters since then has, at a minimum, tried to imitate Times New Roman exactly. The old proportional spacing IBM Selectric typewriters and MS Word look identical because they are trying to be identical.
Re:Times New Roman was designed in 1932. (Score:3, Insightful)
Asked and answered elsewhere. We're talking about Microsoft Times New Roman, a very specific version of Times New Roman with specific letter-spacing. I should have been more specific.
The old proportional spacing IBM Selectric typewriters
There were no proportional-spacing IBM Selectric typewriters. The IBM Executive was a proportional-letterspacing typewriter, but the type that came out of it looked nothing like Times New Roman of any variety, much less Microsoft's.
Re:Try this (Score:3, Informative)
Though proportional-spaced typewriters existed then and were quite common (despite claims to the contrary by some people here), they were still mechanical devices. There were only 4 (perhaps 5) letter widths possible, and the numbers (the "en-space") were 3 units (this is for the IBM Selectric I am familiar with). This produces obvious alignement vertically between far more letters than the Word outpu
CBS must obtain and release originals (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CBS must obtain and release originals (Score:2)
What's interesting to me is that these documents have already undergon
Re:CBS must obtain and release originals (Score:4, Insightful)
CBS News claims that they consulted one document expert, who remains unidentified. While Dr. Philip Bouffard, widely recognized expert in the field of forensic document identification, is quoted on INDC Journal as saying that he's "90% sure" these documents are forgeries.
Your main point is correct: If these documents are outside forgeries, then CBS News deserves merely to be tortured for their negligence, not burned at the stake.
But the possibility exists that these forgeries were manufactured by CBS News. And that possibility is way too scary to dismiss out of hand.
Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today (Score:3, Insightful)
The possibility also exists that they were manufactured by raiders from Remulak, and with only slightly less probability. CBS has nothing to gain from such a forgery, and everything to lose. Their reputation as a reliable source of news -- "liberal bias" or no -- is quite strong, and for them to make up documents like this would be profoundly stupid, especially since
Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know the value of an exclusive. The ad revenues for last night's "60 Minutes II" were over the top.
for them to make up documents like this would be profoundly stupid
It was profoundly stupid for Dan Rather to get into a shouting match with the sitting vice president of the United States on live television, too. But he did it, in 1988.
especially since the documents themselves do not really add a whole lot to the case already made in the Ben Barnes interview
Ah, but that's where you have to have been paying attention. Ben Barnes made these exact same claims in 1999, when then-Governor Bush was running for president. His claim was widely debunked. It never even really broke as a story because it never held water to begin with. He alleged that he pulled strings while he was Lt. Gov. of Texas, for instance, but when Bush was trying to get into the TANG Barnes was in Switzerland as UN general envoy to Geneva. That kind of thing.
The reason Barnes is in the news today is because he's got this shit-hot new documentary evidence. Except the evidence turns out to be forged.
the interview itself, which seems to have settled the question about whether Bush pulled strings to avoid military service
Except that Barnes has nothing at all to back up his claims except a set of forged memos with a dead lieutenant colonel's name on them.
Barnes was outed as a liar by both the pundits and the press in 1999. He's back with forged documents. What do you think?
Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I think this is all a distraction
Agreed. Blame the Democrats who decided to spam the press with the National Guard story again when their candidate took a nosedive in the polls.
Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today (Score:3, Insightful)
May I suggest that you try that new-fangled research tool, the Internet? I know it seems kind of like a fad, but trust me; there's some good stuff on there.
Actually the only reference I've seen to his claims in 1999 are almost the opposite -- apparently he said then that the Bush family did not ask him for help!
His story shifted in the early days from "the Bush family asked me" to "the
Re:Sorry, Sir, We're out of tin foil today (Score:4, Interesting)
He didn't take his physical because this is when the Guard instituted drug testing as part of it. Its ridiculous to suggest he'd risk landing in Vietnam just because taking the physical was not fun.
Its no secret was a frequent cocaine user during this period. He would have been nailed for drug use if he hadn't so he refused. He did and he should have been remanded to regular service for the insubordination and would have if he didn't have connections.
You did know W. was busted in Texas for cocaine possession. Again thanks to family connections he got off with six months of community service at PUSH. I assure you he didn't do community service for poor black folks out of the goodness of his heart. If he'd been poor or black he would have gotten a felony conviction and it would have ended his political career. America and the world would be a better place too.
I imagine the new documents are forged. I wish they'd sneaked by. The problem we have here is the Bush family and their very skilled and ruthless operatives went around destroying all the evidence of his pathetic excuse for a life, including gaining unsupervised and illegal access to his guard file when they destroyed all the really embarrasing documents. As a result there is no proof that he isn't fit to be President, though he isn't, so he has the Teflon coating.
"George W. Bush was born on third base and he thinks he hit a triple" Ann Richards
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
George W. Bush, December 2000
Re:CBS must obtain and release originals (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? Look at the NY Times and that Blair(?) guy - he was making stuff up and they didn't catch it for quite some time.
But why from the WHouse? (Score:3, Insightful)
At first I thought it was idiot Democrats trying to smear, now maybe it is idiot Republicans trying to make Democrats look bad.
I can't wait to see if anyone can demonstrate what military typewriters in 1972 were capable of proportional fonts!!!
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:2)
Kevin Drum (blogging from the Left) [washingtonmonthly.com] looked into this.
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:2)
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:3, Insightful)
And neither of them had the Times New Roman font that these memos were typeset in. That font didn't exist in 1973. It also didn't exist in 1984, when the man who allegedly wrote and signed these memos died.
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:2)
Got a photo of the keyboard handy? I haven't been able to google up anything better than small bad scans of old adverts.
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:2, Troll)
During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width met
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:5, Informative)
The IBM Executive had proportional fonts in 1942, it was the workhorse typewriter for much of business for that exact reason. A Lt Colonel is exactly the type of person who would want correspondence to be written in an impressive typeface. The clerk would use the same machine to write all memos regardless of importance.
There were many variations of the typefaces. A business would be very likely to want special characters such as $ and yen, pounds etc. A law firm would have different requirements and so on.
Since these were mechanical machines it was quite easy to change individual striking levers to add special characters of the customers choice. Eva Braun used an earlier IBM typewriter with a special symbol for the SS with the lightning bolt glyphs.
Superscript th was not an unusual requirement. Even if the machine started as stock it was the type of upgrade that happened regularly in the field. The striking pins have to be accessible because every so often a machine will jam.
The arguments about Word documents mean absolutely nothing. The alignment of the two documents does not look all that good to me, the resolution of the images is way less than the difference I would expect.
When self proclaimed 'experts' start making categorical claims such as proportional spacing typewriters did not exist at the time and those claims are proved false it is time to discount their expertise.
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:3, Interesting)
See the following:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A 9 96 7-2004Sep9.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004
One of the key quotes from the Post article:
" William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques. Documents
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:2)
The Times New Roman appeared for the first time on october 3rd 1932
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:2)
When was Microsoft Times New Roman invented, smarty-pants?
If you want to chastise me for not being sufficiently specific, mea culpa.
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:3, Informative)
I can only find one other case in which Dr Philip Bouffard has provided advice concerning a typewriter font on the net. It involves wierd UFO shit [ufoevidence.org] and Bouffard appears to be supporting the claims made by the UFO believers.
Bouffard is mentioned in a numb
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:3, Interesting)
The significant contributions of Dr. Philip D. Bouffard to the examination and classification of typewriting [asqde.org], Mary W. Kelly, 2004 Meeting of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners.
He's the recognized authority. Look harder.
The biggest reason to doubt the bouffard claims is that the gif image that has been posted is of such a miserable resolution that it is impossible to
prove they're false (Score:2)
The 'd' and 'b' characters are pretty unique and their variation from Times doesn't look like a generational error. I don't see kerning in the memos, either. Word, on the other hand, does a good job kerning the "fe" in "feedback", for example.
Re:But why from the WHouse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Back then, most people in the military were still using grungy old manual typewriters. The military is not noted for being on the cutting edge of office equipment.
All this on Bush... (Score:3)
... and nothing on John Kerry's service record or his post-service Vietnam war related activities? Kerry is anything from a hero to a traitor who should have been executed a long time ago, depending on who you believe. Much more interesting stuff.
I think Slashdot's political section is biased.
Re:All this on Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
All of this stuff has to do with things that happened 30 years ago. We elected (and re-elected!) Clinton who completely dodged the draft - Apparently we were past this 12 years ago.
A much more important comparison between the two candidates is what they have done in the last 3 years, not what they did 30 years ago.
Re:All this on Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
I entirely agree -- whether it's Kerry's service in Vietnam, Bush's in the National Guard, Clinton's deferment or Dean's 4-F, it's ancient history and it's only baby boomer narcissism that anyone thinks any of this matters.
That said...
Kerry has based his entire campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam. Just last week, he responded to Zell Miller's attack on his Senate votes with
Re:All this on Bush... (Score:2)
I'd think that if I'd worked at a job for 20 years, I'd probably have a thing or two to tell a perspective employer other than what I did 30+ years ago.
Re:All this on Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
No he hasn't. The Dem *Convention* focused on his war record to counter the FUD about the Dems always being weaker than the Reps at protecting the country, yadda, yadda. Its bullshit, but a lot of people believe it, so he has to counter that. After the Convention, Kerry has done everything he can to steer the talk to things he believes Bush is weak on. Its Bush's attack dogs that want Vietnam to stay on the table, because as long as thats
Re:All this on Bush... (Score:2)
We used 'em to bomb terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Next time we find a terrorist camp that we can't shut down through diplomacy or economic means, we'll use 'em again.
The range and payload capacity of the B-2, combined with the fact that it can carry satellite-guided JDAM precision munitions, means that we can put ordinance on any given square meter of the planet within a small-but-highly-classified number of hours. Which i
Re:All this on Bush... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the left wants to find any small inconsistency or the smallest lie that Bush told and magnify it. It is important that we have a rock-solid case to defend Bush so that we can k
Re:All this on Bush... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually I think this better illustrates the differences. Republicans repeat fabrications questioning a Democratic who served in Vietnam and at the same time ignore what everyone knows is Bush's AWOL (an actual crime).
There is perhaps no better illustr
Bleh (Score:2)
Motive (Score:2)
Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ???? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it hard to believe I just read that. Technically that is true, but it sounds like "if it turns out the documents are forged, let's still give them the benefit of the doubt that the documents really existed." By the same reasoning, if a reporter makes up a quote and is found out, that still doesn't mean the person didn't say it, so don't reject the quote!
In any investigation, if the documents are fake there is no reason to assume real ones existed.
Re:Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ?? (Score:2)
And the moral of the story is if you're going to forge records from the early 1970s, at least go to the trouble to find early 1970s equipment to do it on.
Re:Just cause it's fake doesn't mean it's false ?? (Score:2)
If these are merely retypings, then the originals must exist somewhere. These are supposed documents written by a dead officer. If the originals don't exist, it was all made up and CBS is untrustworthy as a news source.
What US Politics is all about (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats:"Here are some documents relating to dubious military service 30 years ago!"
Republicans:"Liars they are forged! Here are some potential reasons to prove it!"
Which is to say, there are two parties, that are essentially identical (yes, yes, they have their differences, but compared to the differences in other countries, they are trivial), that find pleasantly obscure and largely irrelevant issues to have long and involved debates over, which the media (of course) buys into heavily. Don't let them waste your time! Don't get caught up in senseless hype chanting mantras about being AWOL, or faked documents - it mostly doesn't matter!
Take a step back, ignore "the other side" for a moment, and actually consider what is important.
Do you believe in larger government or smaller government? Good, now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat because, regardless of rhetoric, if you look at the records they do an equally good job of growing government and government spending.
Do you believe conservative or liberal social policy? Good, now realise that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat because, regardless of rhetoric, if you look at the records neither side has actually implemented any significant social policy change in the last 20 years.
Stop getting distracted by soap operas over trivialities designed to distract you from the fact that neither side ever gets around to doing much of anything with regard to all their rhetoric. Stop letting yourself get dragged in to caring about petty debates over non issues. Take a look at what you actually believe in from a purely political philosophy point of view, and spend some time looking at what is going to work the best to see those ideas actually get implemented!
Jedidiah
Re:Social Policy (Score:2)
And I guess it also depends on what your threshold for signifigance is. To me, it is very significant that under Bush's watch mercury compounds have suddenly been downgraded from toxic chemical status to "volatile organic compounds" and that manufacturers have been given the right to violate clean air acts.
I also think it is very significant that the Defense of Marriage Act
Re:Social Policy (Score:2)
I also think it is very significant that the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law with little protest by Clinton.
Oh, I agree there are differences. My point was not that there aren't difference
Re:What US Politics is all about (Score:2)
Or perhaps spoken by someone used to considering more diverse views, and looking at results rather than rhetoric. Let's have a look at things shall we...
The relatives of 1,000 soldiers who died needlessly in Iraq disagree with you.
Which is interesting, because the democrat candidate has said, many times, that despite the lack of WMD found, he would still have gone to war against Iraq. If you wish to vote for someon
More Fuel for the Fire... (Score:3, Informative)
The conservative blog Powerline has a roiling debate or series of charges that the documents published by CBS last night are forgeries.
The basis of the claim is that the sort of proportional font spacing evidenced in the memoranda wasn't available at the time in question. It only came later with word processors and computers and laser printers. Basically, they say, all people had back then were old fashioned block-type typewriters.
On the face of it, that sounds logical to me. But the editor of the site has now posted the comments of at least one reader who says such machines were actually widely available at the time.
It seems worth noting that the White House accepted the documents as genuine and even began releasing them to other journalists yesterday evening -- though it's not clear to me whether they were releasing their own copies or simply passing on what CBS had given them.
The deeper point is that CBS reported that they had handwriting experts scrutinize these documents to ascertain their authenticity. It seems hard to imagine they'd go to such lengths to have experts analyze them and not check out something so obvious as seeing if they'd been written by a typewriter that was in existence at time. (Hard to imagine or, if true, unimaginably stupid.)
One way or another, I doubt we'll have to speculate about this for very long. This question about what sort of typesets were available in 1973 should be easy enough to settle.
Find some old typewriters (Score:2)
Re:Find some old typewriters (Score:2)
all the sources stem from the freeper article (Score:5, Insightful)
List of websites: (Score:4, Informative)
UPI: breaking news [washingtontimes.com]
littlegreenfootballs.com [littlegreenfootballs.com]
AllahPundit here [allahpundit.com] and here [allahpundit.com] and here [allahpundit.com].
indcjournal.com [indcjournal.com]
cnsnews.com [cnsnews.com]
command-post.org [command-post.org]
hftp.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]
Another distraction (Score:2, Insightful)
It reminds me of a guy who walks into a shopping mall, throws a bunch of pennies on the floor, and while everying is on their hands and knees picking up loose change, he's making off with all their shopping bags.
People get off your knees. Have some self respect and decency and don't fall prey to this big inept pseudo-journalistic, National Enquirer-esque troll that really has very little to do with real issues.
Kerry went to Viet Nam. Bush did not. That's all there basically
A few points.... (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, there are a few reasons why I don't think they are fake:
1. Zoom in on the PDF scans that are available, and the characters seem to support typewriter more than laser printer. First, it seems that there are different ink-levels that one would expect from a ribbon. Compare like letters in different words and you will see that they are darker in some places, or have extra pixels representing "blobs" hanging off of them (bottom serif on the lowercase "n" is a good one). That may be scanning artifact, but it would indicate typewriter.
2. Everyone is making a big deal about the superscript 'th', but IIRC the IBM "golfball" typewriters had the superscripts as special characters (I'm not the first to point this out either). The connectedness of the "th," the fact that they have the same "ink level," and the fact that the entire "th" is no wider than the widest character seems to indicate to me that they were stroked by a typewriter.
3. If the superscript "th" was a function of Word's Auto Format, why didn't it happen in the "111th" in the letterhead?
4. Some of the letters, notably the lowercase "e", look too imprecise to have been laserwritten. Again, very well could be a scanning artifact.
The Philadelphia Project (Score:5, Funny)
These don't look like Kerry's memo's.. (Score:2)
How about going off of current events. (Score:2)
An analysis (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying this is the only possible explanation, but this is what I thought of when I looked at the Bush documents in PDF format [washingtonpost.com] that can be seen on the Washington Post web site. The documents brought back strong memories of working with those machines.
Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. People are saying the proportional spacing is an indication of forgery, because the letters look like Microsoft Word documents.
However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.
The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a one-use carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest laser printer.
I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines. (I wrote computer manuals which I typed on a Selectric and were prepared on those machines.)
There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.
There's a funny side to the self-consistency in my guess about the machine used to prepare the memos. Back then anyone writing and publishing computer user manuals really struggled with the publishing. Whenever something needed to look professional, we had it typeset. To do that, we did what is called "spec type". On one occasion I spent 11 hours specifying typesetting values for one particularly complicated page.
After you have spent many, many hours worrying about the look of type, you begin to be extremely sensitive to everything about it. (Either that, or you wouldn't be successful.)
Looking at the letters discussing preferential treatment for George W. Bush brings back strong memories. The Selectric was an unbelievably complicated machine that needed frequent service because it depended on everything being adjusted to extremely fine tolerances.
Anyone familiar with this can see something funny about the letters immediately. It's obvious to me. Whoever had the typing machine did not have the maintenance contract. It's easy to know this because the letters are not all level with the baseline. That's what would happen when the Selectric or other typing machine from the same family was not adjusted.
The funny self-consistency is this. It's easy to guess that they got the machine from the general's office after some civilian secretary there decided that the new machine was too complicated to learn. But, since an office of lower rank was not allowed to have such a machine, they did not have the maintenance contract. That could be why the baseline of the type is so messy.
Someone said that the letters were forgeries because they were obviously done with Microsoft Word. It is impossible to simulate the variation of baseline with Microsoft Word; Word is too basic a tool, it is not able to do many of the functions of real typesetting. People who are sensitive to the beauty of type certainly don't use MS Word.
I use Ventura Publisher. It is possible t
Re:An analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what the original blogger gives us as proof that this was rare, courtesy of the ever-accurate freerepublic.com (where "Unfit for Command" co-author Jerry Corsi conflated islam, catholicism, and "boy buggery"):
That's absurd, and demonstrably false. You mentioned the selectrics. IBM's electric typewriters had proportional fonts as far back as 1945. Even if the base had a typewriter that was nearly 30 years old, it would still be capable of creating proportional fonts.
Doubters should also remember that today's most popular proportional fonts have been used in typesetting (and on selectrics) since well before TrueType.
Furthermore, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, mentioned in the memos and involved in the back-and-forth, has confirmed that Killian expressed to him the same sentiments contained in the memos.
Regarding the superscripted 'th' argument, this document from Bush's official records also contains a superscripted 'th': http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellane ous.pdf [usatoday.com]. The superscripted th is on page three, in the second line of the log.
The White House even admits the authenticity of the documents, so why is this even an issue?
Because people don't want to realize that Bush disobeyed a DIRECT ORDER from his superior officers.
Because people don't want to think that the plane Bush flew continued to be used regularly through 1975, despite Bush and Bartlett's claims that it was "being phased out" and that Bush didn't need to take the physical because the planes wouldn't be used.
The best line I've heard lately, courtesy of Kevin Drum:
regards, edRe:An analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not correct. IBM made a line of typewriters that used proportional spacing: the IBM Executives. IBM also made a line that had interchangeable type balls that could take different typefaces: the Selectrics.
The Executives could not produce Times New Roman type, or, indeed, any variety of Times. The Selectrics
Re:An analysis (Score:3)
And there ends the similarities between that document and these. That document damns more than it forgives, friend. Compare the typography.
It does help to clarify the matter. The forgery camp has been making blanket statements that superscript "th" was utterly unavailable circa 1972. They have also said that proportional spacing was utterly unavailable circa 1972. It turns out both
Re:An analysis (Score:5, Informative)
That's kind of an oversimplification. Okay, it's not really an oversimplification as much as it is out-and-out wrong. "They" have been saying since early Thursday morning that superscript type balls for the IBM Selectric were available, but only by custom order to IBM and at great cost. "They've" also been saying that the only typewriter that could produce the superscript "th" seen in the CBS memos could not have produced proportional letter-spacing.
I think it will be helpful for everyone to be very clear on exactly what is claimed to be anachronistic
The list is not a short one. Basically everything about these documents is wrong. The format is not correct. The typography is impossible with 1970's-era equipment. The signatures on the two signed memos do not match the signing officer's actual signature. One memo refers to an Air Force manual, AFM 35-13, that never existed; there was a regulation AFR 35-13, but it dealt with supplemental pay for soldiers who were proficient in a foreign language. And, of course, the contents of these memos is suspect because it doesn't jibe with any other account.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
I think the jury's still out on this.
Oh, technically it is. But we're not convicting a man of murder here. There's no reason to err on the side of caution -- either way. Do these documents appear to be forgeries? Yes, definitely. Is there anything about them that suggests they're not forgeries? Nope. Ergo
It is possible that some obscure custom typebar for the IBM Executive was in use
It is not possible, actually, according to representatives of IBM's media relations office. They have the records, and they say that no such custom-made Executives were ever produced.
Right now it looks to me like CBS screwed up bigtime.
Yes, either by passing off obviously forged documents
Re:An analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll have to check it out, and post any co
Other damning evidence (Score:4, Informative)
However, there is plenty of other evidence [glcq.com], based on the documents that the White House released earlier [glcq.com], that show that Bush did not complete his service legally, and even that the Air Force pointed this out to his ANG unit.
Now, I know tons of people here are saying "So what, this happened 30 years ago", and that it doesn't matter anymore. However, lying about it over and over and over again, _does_ matter.
And, as for this kind of trivial issue is distracting us from the bigger issues, you'd be right if this wasn't part of a larger pattern of contemptuous lying from Bush to the public. Basically, the guy lies about anything so that he can just do whatever the fuck he wanted to in the first place:
1) Didn't want to go to ANG duty, but still want to be elected? Lie about your service.
2) Want to secure Iraq's oil supply, but populace won't support outright imperialism? Lie about your reasons (and scare the crap out of them).
3) Want to get credit for cracking down on terrorists, but didn't do squat to actually prevent September 11th? Lie about what info you had earlier in 2001.
Bush is a pathological liar, and a danger to this country. He will say whatever needs to be said to push through his agenda. And, that makes it important to stop him, and makes this issue non-trivial.
Washington Post and ABC News (Score:4, Informative)
and ABC News [go.com] now have stories about it.
From the ABC News article:
CBS seriously screwed up on this one.
Forget proportional spacing. Kerning is the proof. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine.
But what about kerning? [webopedia.com]
"In typography, kerning refers to adjusting the space between characters, especially by placing two characters closer together than normal. Kerning makes certain combinations of letters, such as WA, MW, TA, and VA, look better. "
There is kerning in the memo with SUBJECT: CYA. It happens between the 'f' and 'e' characters of "interference" and "feedback".
The trouble is that kerning requires remembering the previous character.
As advanced as typewriters might have been in 1973, I doubt any had memory.
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:2)
What can we expect next from CBS, Hitler's long-lost diaries, discovered in the third-floor broom closet of CBS headquarters?
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:2)
Actually the headline would read, "Dead person miraculously signs memo written twenty years post mortem."
These memos could not have been put to paper in 1972 or 1973, when they are alleged to have been written. Nor could they have been put to paper in 1984, the year of Lt. Col. Killian's death.
Combine that with the fact that the signatures don't even match, and it looks pretty bad all around for CBS News.
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kudos on your succint statement of a principle worthy of any of the more heinous repressive regimes of our age.
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bleh. Your statement is akin to repealing the 5th amendment and forcing all defendents to defend themselves personally rather than leaving the defense to others.
Presumption of innocence has only gone out the window for those that have prejudged (hmm, is that the root word of "prejudice"?) without waiting for all the facts.
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:2)
jhaynor is a $NASTY-LIE-OR-FALSEHOOD-HERE
And because jhaynor has not denied it, IT MUST BE TRUE.
Hint: Silence does not imply consent. Just ask any child-hood victim of abuse.
How could he deny them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:3, Insightful)
He can refute the absence from rating period, refute the missed physical and explain how he got an honorable discharge after going AWOL without first obtaining a transfer . . . But I'm guessing he won't. The man doesn't even take questions.
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:2)
If bush had to answer questions every month and 8 days the democrats wouldn't be worry about polls at this point
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:2, Insightful)
The President answers questions several times every day, through his press secretary
should read:
The President ducks questions several times every day, through his press secretary
Re:Is bush even denying the accusations? (Score:2)
Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted (Score:2)
And Times New Roman didn't exist until after 1984. The alleged author and signer of these memos died in 1984.
Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted (Score:2)
Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted (Score:3, Insightful)
See how we get from A to B?
First proportional fonts did not exist at all. [oops wrong]
Then Times NEW Roman did not exist [oops wrong]
Then the miliatry could not afford them (bought too many $5000 hammers I guess) [oops wrong]
Then the superscript th was impossible. [oops wrong]
Now we are back to claims that a Lt Colonel could not a
Re:The actual documents seem to be slashdotted (Score:5, Interesting)
It's two words: White House.
Several people are claiming that they used Selectric golfballs with proportional pitch.
Impossible. The pitch on a Selectric isn't controlled by the type ball. It's controlled by the motor drive. The type ball just rotates and elevates to strike a letter on the paper. There's nothing about it that controls how far the type head advances on each letter strike.
but I certainly don't see how you claim to know the exact capabilities of every typewriter owned by the US military.
I've had sixteen hours now to work on this story.
IBM sold selectric golfballs with the th superscript at the time.
Yes. They were custom items that were machined to order and that cost a fortune. And they also could not produce variable-pitch type, nor could they produce Times New Roman type.
There is no reason why they could not have offered their IBM Executive series machines with a similar option.
Yes, there is: the Executive machines didn't use interchangeable type balls. They used a lever-arm mechanism. Either all Executive typewriters would have had the "th" glyph or none of them would have. None did. IBM never made one with that glyph.
And no, the typeface is not MICROSOFT anything, Microsoft has never designed a typeface ever. The Microsoft fonts are from Monospace corp.
LOL. You mean "Monotype?" Heh. When TrueType came along in the early 1990s (or was it late 1980s?) Microsoft licensed the name and the letter forms from Monotype, now Agfa Monotype. Microsoft implemented the font, which means they determined the letterspacing, kerning pairs and so on.
The CTO of Agfa Monotype, incidentally, is on the record saying that it was highly unusual for anyone to use proportional-pitch type in the 1970's. The technology just wasn't there.
The 'expert' you refer to is not regarded as such outside the US republican party.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. He's so influential in the industry of forensic document analysis that other researchers write papers about him.
There is only one google hit for Bouffard and typewriter that relates to a forensic case and that is a crank case involving UFOs.
Your Google-fu is lacking.
Re:Truth is irrelvant (Score:2)
Go read this article and tell me what you think about Bush's service.
http://www.thehill.com/york/090904.aspx
Remember, and I'll repeat it 'til I am blue in the face, I personally am proud of John Kerry's service, regardless of whether he deserved no medals or more medals, whether he fought in Cambodia or Timbuktu. I can't question anything he's done because he protected me and my family from things
Yeah, and (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never understood why this was an Issue democrats kept brining up. No undecided voter is going to care at all. If it could be shown that he'd lied about something (as these d
Re:Truth is irrelvant (Score:2)
Yes. I do. He earned more than enough active duty points, in a program which was dangerous and did experience some deaths, to be honoraby discharged from the reserves a few months early. Especially considering that it was at a time when there were a glut of idle pilots and taking an early release was actually doing the military a favor by allowing them to stop paying officer salary to a
Re:The proof: Kerning (Score:3, Insightful)
In this document:
http://d2d.ali-aba.or