Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[Meadmaker]

I felt that Kerry was entirely entitled to attack it, especially after the Republican convention where Purple Heart band-aids were handed out to delegates, to mock the, according to some, dubious awards Kerry had recieved.

Uggh. I had forgotten that episode.

The 2004 presidential campaign was the source of some truly awful memories.

 

[Giordano]

Bush's service was more heroic than not serving at all (e.g. like Bill Clinton or Bernie Sanders). Flying fighter planes is dangerous work, even if it's not in combat. IIRC, one fighter pilot from Bush's unit died in a crash during Bush's service. Also, it was not a forgone conclusion that he would avoid combat service, as a trained fighter pilot is a pretty valuable resource that the military presumably would draw upon if needed.
[snip]

Just thought I would mention that not servicing is normal among Presidents and candidates now a-days of both parties:

Donald Trump
Ben Carson
Jeb Bush
Ted Cruz
Barack Obama
etc.
We could even add Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin here (they could have volunteered).

Just to present a more complete picture...

 

[sunmaster14]

Just thought I would mention that not servicing is normal among Presidents and candidates now a-days of both parties:

Donald Trump
Ben Carson
Jeb Bush
Ted Cruz
Barack Obama
etc.
We could even add Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin here (they could have volunteered).

Just to present a more complete picture...

Fair enough with respect to Donald Trump or Ben Carson, although I still have a hard time thinking of either one of them as serious candidates. The others were too young to serve in Vietnam. Jeb technically was old enough, but his cohort was never drafted as the military went to all-volunteer by that time. I suppose you could add Hillary Clinton. Sarah Palin was not old enough either. Also, she had a son serve in Iraq, so I think that's enough of a sacrifice to give her some "cred."

 

[Dr. Keith]

Fair enough with respect to Donald Trump or Ben Carson, although I still have a hard time thinking of either one of them as serious candidates. The others were too young to serve in Vietnam. Jeb technically was old enough, but his cohort was never drafted as the military went to all-volunteer by that time. I suppose you could add Hillary Clinton. Sarah Palin was not old enough either. Also, she had a son serve in Iraq, so I think that's enough of a sacrifice to give her some "cred."

As a gut reaction, any criteria that Palin can claim superiority in may not be a good measure of who is best fit to be president.

Just my bias, I know, but something to consider.

 

[Giordano]

Fair enough with respect to Donald Trump or Ben Carson, although I still have a hard time thinking of either one of them as serious candidates. The others were too young to serve in Vietnam. Jeb technically was old enough, but his cohort was never drafted as the military went to all-volunteer by that time. I suppose you could add Hillary Clinton. Sarah Palin was not old enough either. Also, she had a son serve in Iraq, so I think that's enough of a sacrifice to give her some "cred."

Are you implying that one could only "serve" in the military during Vietnam, or that one could have only "served in combat" during the Viet Nam war? I believe that one could have enlisted at anytime for the past 100s of years, and I seem to remember quite a few combat hostilities involving real weapons since Viet Nam...

And with Jeb Bush you are implying that being drafted is somehow more heroic or relevant than just volunteering in the absence of a chance of being drafted.

Once again we seem to have moved the goalposts to quite a silly location. I was eligible for the draft during Viet Nam, but I had a high number and was never called. I was very happy not to get called. And no, I did not volunteer either. So certainly I am not claiming that anyone who was not in the military is some sort of low-life. I fully understand why any individual might not wish to serve. But that doesn't mean that I fail to respect those who did, especially those who risked their lives by voluntarily doing so. It is brave of them. And personally, I particularly value people who, having experienced combat, reach the conclusion that a given war was a mistake if that is what they observed, and then do something with their lives to try to change the government's policy appropriately.

I treasure less any one who calls on family connections to find a more prestigious and less dangerous position than that of army grunt to avoid being drafted, but then are willing to place other people into combat.

 

[sloinker]

Are you implying that one could only "serve" in the military during Vietnam, or that one could have only "served in combat" during the Viet Nam war? I believe that one could have enlisted at anytime for the past 100s of years, and I seem to remember quite a few combat hostilities involving real weapons since Viet Nam...

And with Jeb Bush you are implying that being drafted is somehow more heroic or relevant than just volunteering in the absence of a chance of being drafted.

Once again we seem to have moved the goalposts to quite a silly location. I was eligible for the draft during Viet Nam, but I had a high number and was never called. I was very happy not to get called. And no, I did not volunteer either. So certainly I am not claiming that anyone who was not in the military is some sort of low-life. I fully understand why any individual might not wish to serve. But that doesn't mean that I fail to respect those who did, especially those who risked their lives by voluntarily doing so. It is brave of them. And personally, I particularly value people who, having experienced combat, reach the conclusion that a given war was a mistake if that is what they observed, and then do something with their lives to try to change the government's policy appropriately.

I treasure less any one who calls on family connections to find a more prestigious and less dangerous position than that of army grunt to avoid being drafted, but then are willing to place other people into combat.

I think that dubya wasn't in harms way and didn't fulfill his contracted obligation to be honorably discharged. Then he uses his dubious, mostly fabricated history, to fool the American voter into thinking he was something he wasn't. Most vet's haven't seen combat and all vets over the last few decades are volunteers. I'm a vet, was a coastie for 4 years. Never saw combat but was in harm's way multiple times during routine coastie duties. 50' waves in an 82' boat can definitely become harmful.
Parsing whether the questioned documents are real or not doesn't alleviate the facts. Dubya shirked and was a coward and is a chickenhawk. The evidence is all there and verified by multiple independent sources. The fon't on some documents doesn't change the truth. His daddy and other influential individuals made sure he got to where he was. His cocaine addled, company bankrupting, lying cowardice was all conveneintly tidied up. Daddy wiped his ass all the way to the oval office.

 

[marplots]

Did they ever figure out who faked the fake documents? I read the wiki and it didn't say.

 

[Noztradamus]

By the way, IBM typewriters had font kerning from the 1940's and beyond.

There were at least some that would centre text, but it's so long ago now, I couldn't tell you how old. The method was something like this...

1. Invoke centring. (The platten would move to the centre of the page)
2. Enter the text. (The platten would move one space to the left for each two characters struck)
3. Hit return (The typewriter would then type out the whole line - beautifully centred)

Even on manual typewriters, centred headings were common. We'd fold one page in half long ways, unfold it again, and load two pages into the typewriter. The centreline would be quite visible below the top sheet. To centre a heading, you'd start the typewriter on the centre line, and back space half the number of characters you're intending to type.

Many typewriters included an indicator that showed exactly where you were on the page (either on the bar that held the small rollers against the page, or on the face of the typewriter) and you could easily pick the centre, or specific places on the page from that indicator.

I was taught that kind of typing basics in high-school. But the Department of Defence taught me how to touch type way beyond the basics.

The ruler in Microsoft word, is just mimicing what typewriters used to do. (Including tab-stops)

And my cat's breath smells of catfood.

To the point. The Killian memos supposedly would have been typed not on some IBM magicball. but an old Olympia manual.

 

[SezMe]

Well, Bush did too. Perhaps more importantly, though, Bush didn't make his "heroic" military service a centerpiece of his campaign for President.

Of course. It was as hollow as a ping-pong ball.

 

[Giordano]

And my cat's breath smells of catfood.

To the point. The Killian memos supposedly would have been typed not on some IBM magicball. but an old Olympia manual.

Okay, why do you say this?

 

[Noztradamus]

Okay, why do you say this?

Because the formatting makes it at least 83% likely the memos were fabricated using a Windows PC/printer in the 21st century.

Ignoring that actual machine the relevant typist used back in the 70s, and arguing that persons or persons unknown could have made something like the memos if they had access to some fancy machine that might have been available then does not advance the argument.

 

[Giordano]

Because the formatting makes it at least 83% likely the memos were fabricated using a Windows PC/printer in the 21st century.

Ignoring that actual machine the relevant typist used back in the 70s, and arguing that persons or persons unknown could have made something like the memos if they had access to some fancy machine that might have been available then does not advance the argument.

I have already posted here that I believe that it is likely that these memos are forgeries and even if not, accuse Bush of a deed at a chicken manure level. I certainly think Dan Rather did not show due diligence in vetting these. But I remain interested in finding out why people who are absolutely certain that they are forgeries have that level of confidence- a smoking gun if you will that would completely convince me.

When you just posted that these documents, if authentic, would have been typed on an old Olympia manual, I thought- aha- a smoking gun because the typeface and pressure would have been easy to confirm as an Olympia manual or not (presumably not given your conclusion). But I gather this was sarcasm on your part, and we don't really know what typewriter(s) the signing officer would have available in their office at the time.

The actual machine available is important to know because (as I still understand it) some typewriters at the time would have been able to generate the memos and others not. Being able to rule out the former as available to the alleged writer would make the conclusion "forgery!" easy and definitive. As it is, we still have the same situation as before- more machines (computers) were available that would have generated that style of type at the time of the forgery than at the time of an authentic letter. I agree, but so far I haven't seen information that indicates NO machines would have been available to the officer at the time which could have produced authentic memos.

My conclusion- the memos are probably a forgery, but there is still a small possibility that they are not, and that the widely believed presumption that they were definitely a forgery is often based on evidence that, once challenged, is not really there.

 

[varwoche]

<snip textbook critical thinking>

Textbook critical thinking!

 

[sunmaster14]

I have already posted here that I believe that it is likely that these memos are forgeries and even if not, accuse Bush of a deed at a chicken manure level. I certainly think Dan Rather did not show due diligence in vetting these. But I remain interested in finding out why people who are absolutely certain that they are forgeries have that level of confidence- a smoking gun if you will that would completely convince me.

When you just posted that these documents, if authentic, would have been typed on an old Olympia manual, I thought- aha- a smoking gun because the typeface and pressure would have been easy to confirm as an Olympia manual or not (presumably not given your conclusion). But I gather this was sarcasm on your part, and we don't really know what typewriter(s) the signing officer would have available in their office at the time.

The actual machine available is important to know because (as I still understand it) some typewriters at the time would have been able to generate the memos and others not. Being able to rule out the former as available to the alleged writer would make the conclusion "forgery!" easy and definitive. As it is, we still have the same situation as before- more machines (computers) were available that would have generated that style of type at the time of the forgery than at the time of an authentic letter. I agree, but so far I haven't seen information that indicates NO machines would have been available to the officer at the time which could have produced authentic memos.

My conclusion- the memos are probably a forgery, but there is still a small possibility that they are not, and that the widely believed presumption that they were definitely a forgery is often based on evidence that, once challenged, is not really there.

Have you read the link to Joseph Newcomer's analysis? It doesn't seem like you have. There are several problems with claiming that typewriters existed at the time which could have done some of the typography found in the memos. First, there really was no one typewriter that could do everything. Second, the things that some existing typewriters could do that match in theory, do not actually match in practice. At least, nobody has used a typewriter from that period to duplicate the memos to a reasonable degree of accuracy, and I think we can assume that people have tried. Third, any typewriters that might have been able to do advanced typography would have been very unlikely to be found in a national guard office in Texas and used by a non-professional typist to write unimportant memos to himself(!). Fourth, it would be an amazing coincidence that right wing bloggers could just open up MS Word 2003 and start typing the memos and end up with a virtually pixel by pixel match to images of the memos without any alteration at all except a scaling of copy size. Finally, there is some additional Bayesian logic working against the authenticity of the memos. Based on the typography alone, right wing bloggers called ********. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that when CBS looked to authenticate the chain of custody of the memos, it just so happened to find out that their source not only revealed that he had burned the originals, but that his story kept changing as to how he got ahold of the memos? I mean, there are presumably scenarios where some super advanced typewriter was used to type the memos in the 1970s, which led to bloggers challenging their authenticity based on fonts and formatting and the like, but where CBS actually could trace the chain of custody and determine the source or even find the originals. But we have to exclude all of those scenarios, which may easily be more than 90% of scenarios in which an advanced typewriter really did exist in the national guard office and was used by Killian. So the probability gets cut down even more.

I didn't just pick my confidence level out of my ass. I do this kind of Bayesian analysis constantly, although not necessarily in a spreadsheet. From my point of view the probability that the memos are real is about the same level that I am just completely delusional and imagining that the event even happened at all.

 

[Giordano]

Have you read the link to Joseph Newcomer's analysis? It doesn't seem like you have. There are several problems with claiming that typewriters existed at the time which could have done some of the typography found in the memos. First, there really was no one typewriter that could do everything. Second, the things that some existing typewriters could do that match in theory, do not actually match in practice. At least, nobody has used a typewriter from that period to duplicate the memos to a reasonable degree of accuracy, and I think we can assume that people have tried. Third, any typewriters that might have been able to do advanced typography would have been very unlikely to be found in a national guard office in Texas and used by a non-professional typist to write unimportant memos to himself(!). Fourth, it would be an amazing coincidence that right wing bloggers could just open up MS Word 2003 and start typing the memos and end up with a virtually pixel by pixel match to images of the memos without any alteration at all except a scaling of copy size. Finally, there is some additional Bayesian logic working against the authenticity of the memos. Based on the typography alone, right wing bloggers called ********. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that when CBS looked to authenticate the chain of custody of the memos, it just so happened to find out that their source not only revealed that he had burned the originals, but that his story kept changing as to how he got ahold of the memos? I mean, there are presumably scenarios where some super advanced typewriter was used to type the memos in the 1970s, which led to bloggers challenging their authenticity based on fonts and formatting and the like, but where CBS actually could trace the chain of custody and determine the source or even find the originals. But we have to exclude all of those scenarios, which may easily be more than 90% of scenarios in which an advanced typewriter really did exist in the national guard office and was used by Killian. So the probability gets cut down even more.

I didn't just pick my confidence level out of my ass. I do this kind of Bayesian analysis constantly, although not necessarily in a spreadsheet. From my point of view the probability that the memos are real is about the same level that I am just completely delusional and imagining that the event even happened at all.

Your confidence level, as you posted, is that the memos are forgeries to the extent that you are willing to undergo an agonizing death if they are not. I am not at that level, which is quite a bit more confident than I (I am willing to suffer a papercut if the memos are not not forgeries).

Is the bulk of the evidence that they are forgeries?- yes I have routinely stated so. But when you look at each piece of the narrative, there is no smoking gun that rules out absolutely all possibility of them being authentic. Just to take your statements as I have highlighted:

1. There is no reason to think that an army office had only one typewriter and one typist. My small main office had 4, and each lab had two or more, in a small department. In fact, the different styles in the PDFs you cited are suggestive of more than one typist, which is exactly what one might expect given the different dates and not what one would expect if one forger sat down to make the forgeries look plausible, but forgot all about the ligatures and the proportional spacing.

2. What exactly is it that no typewriters at the time could match in practice but only in theory? I'm not certain I understand this- by practice are you referring to the likely absence of these "theoretical" typewriters from National Guard office at the time? If so, see below. If not, what exactly do you mean? And why assume that people have tried to duplicate the memos and failed, or if they did that we would have heard of these attempts?

3. Do you know as a fact that these advanced typewriters were not in the National Guard office at the time? That would be a smoking gun proving forgery, so do we know it or are you speculating? These advanced typewriters were in my small departmental office in a state university at the time, so it is certainly not impossible a concept. Are there purchase orders or documents from the time that make it impossible for that office to have such a typewriter?

And remember I am not challenging your position- I have from the beginning agreed that most of the evidence indicates forgeries. But I want to understand the exact evidence proving this so I too can share your confidence level. We are arguing a trivial point on which we probably agree 80-90 percent. But if you believe 99.9% I want to see the additional evidence that has inspired you to this level of certainty.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

And remember I am not challenging your position- I have from the beginning agreed that most of the evidence indicates forgeries. But I want to understand the exact evidence proving this so I too can share your confidence level. We are arguing a trivial point on which we probably agree 80-90 percent. But if you believe 99.9% I want to see the additional evidence that has inspired you to this level of certainty.

I guess you have to have a feel for how probabilities are calculated. If you have 4 independent events which need to happen in order for the memos not to be forgeries, and each of those events has a 10% chance of being true, then the probability that the memos are not forgeries is (0.10)*(0.10)*(0.10)*(0.10) = 0.01%. It really doesn't take much to get to high levels of confidence that the memos are forgeries if the hypothesis that they are authentic requires a cascade of unlikely things to be true.

The probability that the national guard office had a fancy typewriter was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that Bush's commanding officer knew how to use that fancy typewriter to do fancy typesetting was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that new memos from 30 years before would have escaped the notice of journalists for over 4 years but would just suddenly appear less than 3 months before the Presidential election was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that the person in possession of those memos would claim to have burned the originals and would be unable to explain the provenance of the memos was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that Bush's commanding officer would believe another officer was getting pressure about Bush from somebody who had been retired from the Guard for almost 18 months was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that there would not be a single typo in any of the four memos, not counting the extra spaces to prevent superscripting in certain places, is far less than 50% in my view. The probability that an air national guard officer would use non-standard lingo in a memo is far less than 50% in my view. The probability that creating a new document in MS Word 2003 and typing the memo text without using anything other than default settings would exactly match the typography of a 30 year old typewriter is far less than 10% in my view (actually, less than 0.01% all by itself, in my view). All of these things are independent events, and all have to be true in order for the memos to be authentic. This means you have to multiply them all together, and the product then is very, very small.

 

[Brainster]

My conclusion- the memos are probably a forgery, but there is still a small possibility that they are not, and that the widely believed presumption that they were definitely a forgery is often based on evidence that, once challenged, is not really there.

You are demanding an unrealistic standard of proof, and shifting the burden from where it should be (prove the documents are real). By this measure, there is a small possibility that Bigfoot doesn't exist, that the US government was behind the 9-11 attacks, and that psychics really do have extraordinary powers.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I remembered the myriad threads annoying the hell out of me at the time, and I think it may have been a motivating factor towards our current policy of merging duplicate (or duplicate-ish) threads.

Sweet smurfy Jebus, I've been here a long time...

Hah, I was looking at one of the threads you linked to and thought the same things, 1) Man, Cleon was annoyed, even then, about the number of threads, and 2) Man, Cleon has been a moderator for a while.

 

[Giordano]

I guess you have to have a feel for how probabilities are calculated. If you have 4 independent events which need to happen in order for the memos not to be forgeries, and each of those events has a 10% chance of being true, then the probability that the memos are not forgeries is (0.10)*(0.10)*(0.10)*(0.10) = 0.01%. It really doesn't take much to get to high levels of confidence that the memos are forgeries if the hypothesis that they are authentic requires a cascade of unlikely things to be true.

The probability that the national guard office had a fancy typewriter was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that Bush's commanding officer knew how to use that fancy typewriter to do fancy typesetting was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that new memos from 30 years before would have escaped the notice of journalists for over 4 years but would just suddenly appear less than 3 months before the Presidential election was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that the person in possession of those memos would claim to have burned the originals and would be unable to explain the provenance of the memos was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that Bush's commanding officer would believe another officer was getting pressure about Bush from somebody who had been retired from the Guard for almost 18 months was far less than 10% in my view. The probability that there would not be a single typo in any of the four memos, not counting the extra spaces to prevent superscripting in certain places, is far less than 50% in my view. The probability that an air national guard officer would use non-standard lingo in a memo is far less than 50% in my view. The probability that creating a new document in MS Word 2003 and typing the memo text without using anything other than default settings would exactly match the typography of a 30 year old typewriter is far less than 10% in my view (actually, less than 0.01% all by itself, in my view). All of these things are independent events, and all have to be true in order for the memos to be authentic. This means you have to multiply them all together, and the product then is very, very small.

You are making a lot of assumptions to justify the various 10% numbers you cite and their independence from one another (which would be the only time you can multiple). Would you have assumed that my office in a state organization at that time also had a less than 10% chance of having a superscript typewriter? But almost every office in my organization had one. My office had two, and almost every secretary in these offices knew how to use its fancier features; in fact so did I even as a researcher in the same building. So rather (pun intended) that having less than one chance in 1% as you have calculated (making it look scientific) we had a 100% probability of producing these features in our correspondence.

But I am mystified why you continue to wish to discuss this with someone who also concludes that these are probably forgeries. Is there some reason you are only happy if you can conclude that these are definitely forgeries- how does that change anything of significance? Bush is gone from the presidency, Rather is gone from 60 mins. We don't even know what the movie that appears to have disturbed you will say.

My conclusion remains- probably forgeries, but a lot of the evidence previously cited as definitive is not.

 

[Giordano]

You are demanding an unrealistic standard of proof, and shifting the burden from where it should be (prove the documents are real). By this measure, there is a small possibility that Bigfoot doesn't exist, that the US government was behind the 9-11 attacks, and that psychics really do have extraordinary powers.

I am not demanding anything- how many times must I say that I believe the memos are probably forgeries? But it is wise to keep track of what the actual evidence says, and not casually cite something as proof which in fact fails to be definitive proof. The presence of ligatures was widely cited as proof the memos could not have been typewritten, but some typewriters of the period could make these. The mix of ligature superscripts and on-line in the documents could further argue against these being from one of these fancy typewriters, but in fact the mix was never seen in a single memo and was only when memos from different dates are compared (an argument against one person doing all the forgery at one time, as I note above). Etc. I am not demanding anything to change my mind (I am pro-forgery)- I only only seeking to clarify what proof we really have and what we don't have.

As to Bigfoot- yes we have a lack of evidence that we should have if they really existed. Yes, I am pretty strongly convinced that they do not exist. But I recognize that there remains a small possibility that they might exist, so I would certainly not beg to die in agony if Bigfoot was ever proven true. And although the absence of anyone finding documented Bigfoot DNA is pretty good evidence that they do not exist, the absence of a finding documented Bigfoot automobiles is not pretty good evidence that Bigfeet do not exist. It is important to remember what the evidence actually states and what it does not, and to keep in mind alternative explanations.