Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[novaphile]

You shouldn't have posted what you did....now sunmaster14 is going to die.

Bugger, that wasn't my intention. Just picking at the arguments to reveal the hidden premises, that don't stand up when stated in full.

None of this discredits the idea that the documents could be forgeries, just takes apart the erroneous arguments that claim to "prove" that the documents were forgeries.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is again what I asked for- the actual evidence of it being a forgery. I appreciate it. I was able to finally find a high-def version of the Johnson blink GIF and it does indicates a very strong resemblance between the work 2003 document and the "Killan" memos. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I did notice consistent differences in certain letters on the blink- r, e, a few others. This could due to the multiple levels of copying of the alleged Killan memos, or differences in the actual printer, or actual differences in the different documents. In fact the document experts brought in by 60 minutes also said that the memos were too crudely copied to accurately judge. Personally I think the comparison would have been better if the blink alternated between the memo, the Microsoft 2003 document, and an overlay of both- the use of one version and the overlay tended to block up the letters and made it harder to see any similarities and differences.

The match isn't pixel-perfect; it appears to have been photocopied repeatedly and then faxed. Still, to get the degree of match we see, you have to match the font height, width, weight, kerning, inter-word spacing, inter-line spacing, line width, line and word break rules, superscript size, and text centering on a 2003 computer and laser printer with a 1970 electromechanical device.

But no such device ever existed. The proportional spacing typewriters that existed at the time worked on completely different principles and used completely different font metrics. Their output looked completely different from the output of a modern laser printer - as shown in the examples in the documents I linked to.

 

[PixyMisa]

1. Premise: It was not possible to create these documents on any typewriter in 1970.

True. It was not possible. No typewriter in existence ever used to font metrics found in the forged memos.

2. Premise: It was not possible for a Colonel, on a military base, that's large enough to have operational jet planes, to have access to a typist that used a typewriter that had been available since 1944. (Note this seems to be suggesting that there was only one typist and one typewriter on the entire base).

Irrelevant, since no such typewriter ever existed.

Still, such typewriters were used for document preparation, not for typing memos. No-one would ever go to that much trouble.

3. It is possible to (nearly) replicate the memos, using Microsoft Word 2003.

I'd classify this as a red-herring. Word processing software should allow someone to (nearly) replicate a photocopy of a type-written document. Even if it was possible to exactly replicate the document using this method, it still doesn't prove anything about the original document.

No, that's a red herring.

The memo can be reproduced precisely with the default settings of Microsoft Word 2003 on a Mac. Start Word, type the text, and you get an exact match.

That's not a coincidence. That's proof that the memos were clumsy forgeries.

So, once again. I don't care about the specifics (i.e. who did what) but respectfully suggest that no-one has come within coo-ee of proving that the document was fake.

Sorry, but you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. The documents are forgeries; that's established fact.

 

[sunmaster14]

You shouldn't have posted what you did....now sunmaster14 is going to die.

Aw crap. And on the weekend too. Why couldn't it have been Monday morning at least?

I was made aware of Hailey's work 11 years ago. It is addressed in the link to Newcomer's web page that I have posted before. Here it is. And here.

There are links to other people's work in there too debunking Hailey. I read through his paper, and it just reeks of scientific dishonesty. As Newcomer says, he just makes baseless assertions without providing anywhere near enough detail to allow you to corroborate his work. The stuff about the damaged or worn typeface is utter nonsense. The effect is completely swamped by the poor resolution of the copies of the memos (and the fact that they have evidently gone through many generations of copying, faxing, and scanning). Newcomer goes into a detailed analysis in the links I provided.

Whew. I'm starting to feel better already!

 

[PixyMisa]

and finally, the analysis from someone who clearly does know something about typography, where it is demonstrated that the claims are false.

i.e. the original was not centred, the original is not in Times New Roman, Word defaults do not replicate the layout and kerning.

http://typekit.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/bush_memos.pdf

 

[marplots]

Who made the forgeries and why?
Did anyone ever ask the Colonel/typist?

 

[Giordano]

As promised, I am out of this discussion. But if others insist on continuing, I will be a silent observer.

 

[novaphile]

Ah, you're aware of the research but discount it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion.

I get it.

That font is interesting, isn't it. Have you been able to identify it?

The curly tops remind me of something I've seen before, probably as part of the Free BMD project. I'm reviewing previous scans to see if I can identify that font in any of the material that I worked on in the past.

 

[PixyMisa]

Who made the forgeries and why?
Did anyone ever ask the Colonel/typist?

The Colonel is deceased; the typist has said that only ordinary IBM Selectrics were in use at the base at that time. (She doesn't dispute the contents, though other witnesses do, so that part of the story is up in the air.)

As for the source, I wouldn't bother looking beyond whatsisface who provided the memos to 60 Minutes and then claimed later that he got them from elves. Or was it Elvis?

 

[PixyMisa]

Aw crap. And on the weekend too. Why couldn't it have been Monday morning at least?

I was made aware of Hailey's work 11 years ago. It is addressed in the link to Newcomer's web page that I have posted before. Here it is. And here.

There are links to other people's work in there too debunking Hailey. I read through his paper, and it just reeks of scientific dishonesty. As Newcomer says, he just makes baseless assertions without providing anywhere near enough detail to allow you to corroborate his work. The stuff about the damaged or worn typeface is utter nonsense. The effect is completely swamped by the poor resolution of the copies of the memos (and the fact that they have evidently gone through many generations of copying, faxing, and scanning). Newcomer goes into a detailed analysis in the links I provided.

Whew. I'm starting to feel better already!

Thanks, I remember that stuff from the time.

Basically, Hailey went anomaly hunting on a low-quality copy of a document. His conclusion that the documents were typewritten is, to put it mildly, without merit.

 

[marplots]

The Colonel is deceased; the typist has said that only ordinary IBM Selectrics were in use at the base at that time. (She doesn't dispute the contents, though other witnesses do, so that part of the story is up in the air.)

As for the source, I wouldn't bother looking beyond whatsisface who provided the memos to 60 Minutes and then claimed later that he got them from elves. Or was it Elvis?

That's pretty damning. Provenance and chain of custody mean a lot.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's pretty damning. Provenance and chain of custody mean a lot.

The source was Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. From the Wikipedia article:

Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.

 

[novaphile]

LOL. You're really reaching now.

The link I passed to you referred to scanning a much better copy than the versions which had been faxed multiple times.

I've had a look at the flashing blue/red gif animation, and the two fonts are obviously different. I'm surprised you can't see that.

Even in the Red/Blue GIF, there are obvious properties of typewritten text (letters not always being horizontally in line with each other for example) which stand out in stark contrast to the word-processed copy.

I still haven't found that specific font, but I'm enjoying the search.

Thanks for this, it's quite entertaining.

 

[marplots]

The source was Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. From the Wikipedia article:

Was Lt. Col. Bill Burkett in a position where he would have had access to such documents? That would strengthen the tale. (Even with a fictitious person layered on.) If he wasn't, then the fictitious person is more of a problem.

 

[PixyMisa]

LOL. You're really reaching now.

The link I passed to you referred to scanning a much better copy than the versions which had been faxed multiple times.

I've had a look at the flashing blue/red gif animation, and the two fonts are obviously different. I'm surprised you can't see that.

I just looked at that. My god, the man's an idiot. See sunmaster's links to Newcomer's analysis, which is far more thorough and detailed and takes apart Hailey's assertions piece by piece.

I'd read Newcomer before, but hadn't read Hailey in the original. Gah.

Among other problems, Newcomer actually tried to reproduced the documents with 1970s proportionally-spaced typewriters. Others have tried as well (the linked I posted earlier). The conclusion is not only that no typewriter ever produced has the font metrics of the documents, but that no typewriter could have been built with those font metrics.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, Hailey said he had a higher-quality unfaxed document to compare. No-one else has that document. Where is it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Was Lt. Col. Bill Burkett in a position where he would have had access to such documents? That would strengthen the tale. (Even with a fictitious person layered on.) If he wasn't, then the fictitious person is more of a problem.

I really don't know. I know something about computer typography (I spent some time in the 90s working on document printing software), but the organisational structure of the TANG is a little outside my field.

He was with the TANG, so there's that at least.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have to say, I think it's entirely possible that Bush was lax in carrying out his duties with the TANG; it was the end of the Vietnam War, troop numbers were being cut, the plane Bush flew was due to be retired and he would have needed retraining anyway. It's likely no-one cared much and he was allowed to skate past.

It's possible also that there was a memo in his file that said something like what the forged memos said. That would concur with the recollection of Killian's secretary.

But the memos we have are clumsy forgeries. The only evidence we have for the story is fraudulent, which means the story becomes the fraud and the journalistic incompetence that took it to air.

But I have no interest one way or another what Bush did or didn't do in 1972. It didn't matter much then; it matters not at all now. What matters is the fraud and incompetence, and the utterly dishonest movie that applauds incompetence and partisanship as the highest calling of journalism.

 

[novaphile]

The Newcomer article/s are interesting but seem to be entirely about what can be achieved using a computer.

Hence: I can fake the Mona Lisa with a 3D printer, therefore the Mona Lisa is a modern fraud.

When the claims are examined in this light, the logic looks flawed.

I seem to be looking at a different memo, but the OBVIOUS differences in the type face, seem to preclude it from being created by MS Word using the Times/New Roman font.

 

[PixyMisa]

The Newcomer article/s are interesting but seem to be entirely about what can be achieved using a computer.

He also tried to reproduce the memos on an IBM Executive and on a Selectric Composer, without success.

Keep reading, there are three or four more pages after the first one.

Hence: I can fake the Mona Lisa with a 3D printer, therefore the Mona Lisa is a modern fraud.

This is not what anyone is saying.

If you claim to have discovered a new da Vinci painting, and while the surface is somewhat damaged, we find that the paint matches as far as we can tell a modern formulation that da Vinci had no access to, then we would be right to question the provenance.

When the claims are examined in this light, the logic looks flawed.

But it's a false light.

Sure, it's possible to reproduce any typewritten document on a computer. Scan it in, print it out, done.

But it is not possible to reproduce a computer-generated document on a typewriter, unless the document was specifically generated to match the characteristics of a physical typewriter.

And that's the problem. The document doesn't match the characteristics of any known typewriter, nor does it match the general characteristics of the way proportional spacing typewriters work. It matches the properties of modern digital typesetting, which did not exist in 1972.

I seem to be looking at a different memo, but the OBVIOUS differences in the type face, seem to preclude it from being created by MS Word using the Times/New Roman font.

Okay, which of the memos are you looking at? As I recall, there were five or six in all. If one of them is false (which I think is conclusive), that casts doubt on the others but doesn't prove anything.