Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[novaphile]

What I'd really like to see is some expert analysis of the font used, and the equipment that was available with that font.

And of course, some analysis of the properties of the "kerning" done by IBM typewriters since the 1940's

Similarly, a list of typewriters capable of producing the "th" character, whether truly "superscript" or merely psuedo "superscript".

I haven't done any typing on a typewriter since 1989 (yay computers) but have clear memories of those characters being available on manual and electric typewriters.

For example: here is a "th" key on a manual typewriter (right hand side, second row from the top) http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/olympiasg1.jpg

 

[bruto]

What I'd really like to see is some expert analysis of the font used, and the equipment that was available with that font.

And of course, some analysis of the properties of the "kerning" done by IBM typewriters since the 1940's

Similarly, a list of typewriters capable of producing the "th" character, whether truly "superscript" or merely psuedo "superscript".

I haven't done any typing on a typewriter since 1989 (yay computers) but have clear memories of those characters being available on manual and electric typewriters.

For example: here is a "th" key on a manual typewriter (right hand side, second row from the top) http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/olympiasg1.jpg

I thought the links in PixyMisa's post 253 above covered that pretty well.

 

[novaphile]

Again, I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree.

The IBM typewriter I used, and indeed was trained on, did not automatically add any extra spaces after commas or full stops.

We were trained to double-space after these characters, and it was a hard habit to break when I switched to using computers.

There seems to be no acknowledgment of a "th" key existing at all, so again I must doubt.

 

[novaphile]

Just stumbled over this:

"Mrs. Knox said signs of forgery abound in the four memos.

She said the typeface on the documents did not match either of the two typewriters that she used during her time with the Guard. She identified those machines as a mechanical Olympia typewriter and the IBM Selectric that replaced it in the early 1970s.

She spoke fondly of the Olympia, which she said had a key with the "th" superscript character that has been the focus of much debate in the CBS memos. "

I'm interested that the testimony of the person who believes the documents to be forgeries, is disregarded about the superscript th character.

Go figure eh?

 

[PixyMisa]

There seems to be no acknowledgment of a "th" key existing at all, so again I must doubt.

It doesn't matter much whether there was a th key; it matters whether there was a superscripted th character. However, Woodworth specifically acknowledges that such a key was an option on the IBM Executive.

It may not have been present on the typewriters in use at the TANG in 1972, but we don't know for sure.

But that th character doesn't match the memo. Not on the IBM Executive, not on the Selectric Composer. Newcomer actually got those typewriters and tested them.

What does match is Microsoft Word using Times New Roman, which is what we come back to time and time again. The memos were produced in Microsoft Word.

 

[marplots]

I'm convinc^th.

 

[novaphile]

I'm convinc^th.

LOL!

Nicely done.

 

[novaphile]

It doesn't matter much whether there was a th key; it matters whether there was a superscripted th character. However, Woodworth specifically acknowledges that such a key was an option on the IBM Executive.

Not on the IBM Executive, not on the Selectric Composer. Newcomer actually got those typewriters and tested them.

So you're saying he didn't test the th CHARACTER from the Olympia, as described by the typist that usually prepared the memos then?

I'll look over that section of his blog posts again.

 

[bruto]

Given the stakes here, I would have thought that anyone who could come up with a definite and provable possibility for the documents to be genuine would have done so, and published it.

I mean, I despise Mr. Bush, and if I had any way to provide true evidence of his shortcomings, I certainly would!

 

[novaphile]

He does not seem to be saying what you think he is saying:

" What I did was create a set of equally-spaced vertical lines, then I stretched the CBS justification image so the characters all lined up. Note they are monospaced. The "th" takes up one character position. Then above it, I stretched the image from the 04-May-1972 image (in both cases maintaining the aspect ratio) until the digits lined up. Even in proportional fonts, the digits are always designed to have the same width to simplify doing columns of digits. Note how the "th" is not quite aligned right, and the spacing is not uniform. So we take a typewriter with a monospaced font and a ligature,"​

So, he's not using an IBM typewriter with characters that take up various amounts of space, nor is he testing a typewriter with a "th" character on it's own key.

What he has tested is whether he can "stretch" the CBS image to make the characters look the way he wants them to look.

Clearly he didn't get the whole, typewriter pulls the page askew bit.

Why on earth he'd be relying on screen shot captures is beyond me.

Anyway, we're all in agreement that we're just wasting time here, so I'm going to give up on this.

Fascinating story (the media side) and I'm looking forward to seeing what the movie says...

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

No. He was Army NG not Air Force.

 

[sunmaster14]

Given the stakes here, I would have thought that anyone who could come up with a definite and provable possibility for the documents to be genuine would have done so, and published it.

I mean, I despise Mr. Bush, and if I had any way to provide true evidence of his shortcomings, I certainly would!

Right. In all this time, nobody has actually used a typewriter that existed in the early 1970s (or even built one using 1970s technology) to reproduce the memos to a reasonable degree of precision. I think we would have heard about it if somebody had. Meanwhile, multiple bloggers reproduced the memos to a reasonable degree of precision within hours of seeing the memos, simply by opening up MS Word and typing the memos in, without changing any of the default settings. That's why people like Hailey are reduced to trying to show that the memos could not have been produced by a computer (which allows for all kinds of obfuscation and distraction) instead of trying to show that they could have been produced by contemporary technology (which would be fairly clear-cut).

 

[PixyMisa]

So you're saying he didn't test the th CHARACTER from the Olympia, as described by the typist that usually prepared the memos then?

I'll look over that section of his blog posts again.

Couldn't have been an Olympia either. Even if they had a proportionally-spaced Olympia, and there's no evidence at all of that, the proportional spacing mechanism they used was completely different to the spacing used in the document.

This is just un-nomaly hunting.

 

[Meadmaker]

The interesting thing to me is that determining the typography of the memos is a problem pretty easily solved in a pretty convincing way. I haven't read the dueling experts' testimony very much, but I know that this is not an incredibly difficult problem to come up with a definitive answer for.

So, why didn't we? Why do we have a whole bunch of "my expert says" sorts of testimony, complete with "look at my font" uploads.

It's because the question isn't really worth solving, and it wasn't even worth solving at the time of the controversy. Bush partisans said that they were absolutely forgeries. Kerry partisans said either they weren't forgeries, or it didn't matter. However, no one else really cared. If you were already determined to vote for one or the other, you might get all wrapped up in one answer or the other, but otherwise, you probably wished they would stop talking about it and get to something significant.

As a result, it got to a stage where it was determined that, at the very least, their authenticity was suspect, they hadn't been properly reviewed before being publicized, and no one really cared about them in the first place, so it made it clear that Rather was doing a hack job and was looking to put down Bush. They didn't need to get out the microscopes to be absolutely certain about the forgery or lack thereof. They already knew Rather had taken a side in the presidential race. The CBS News viewers didn't like that very much, so he got the boot.

 

[PixyMisa]

As a result, it got to a stage where it was determined that, at the very least, their authenticity was suspect, they hadn't been properly reviewed before being publicized, and no one really cared about them in the first place, so it made it clear that Rather was doing a hack job and was looking to put down Bush. They didn't need to get out the microscopes to be absolutely certain about the forgery or lack thereof. They already knew Rather had taken a side in the presidential race. The CBS News viewers didn't like that very much, so he got the boot.

Yes. From the internal investigation at CBS, we know that Mapes (and presumably Rather, to the extent he was involved in the story) ignored the advice of their own document experts.

It's clear that the documents were forgeries, but at the very least it should have raised red flags all over the place and put the story on hold. The kindest interpretation is that Mapes and Rather were partisans and felt that the story was too good to ask questions; the alternative being that they were completely incompetent. (I suspect it's a bit of both; both Mapes and Rather still seem to think they were right.)

 

[cmikes]

There is a lot of evidence that supports Kerry in terms of Cambodia at Christmas. This includes quotes from officers who were in a position to know at the time and his diary at the time. Quotes from people stating that they did not know that he was in Cambodia is hardly evidence that he was not (in fact, at the time I was 15 years old and didn't know either). Given it was a secret mission that the USA wished to deny, I am not surprised that many people did not know.

Again-speculation without evidence seems particularly slimy to me when used to attack someone's character, especially for political purposes.

Yeah, I always loved that one. John Kerry in Cambodia in 1968 while President Nixon claimed that there were no US troops in Cambodia.

The same "professional" journalists that were going over George Bush's National Guard records with tweezers and a fine tooth comb couldn't be bothered to fact check who was President of the United States in December of 1968.

 

[Noztradamus]

There is a lot of evidence that supports Kerry in terms of Cambodia at Christmas. This includes quotes from officers who were in a position to know at the time and his diary at the time. .

Actually his diary at the time provides compelling evidence that he wasn't anywhere near Cambodia at the time - whatever he stated later

 

[Giordano]

Actually his diary at the time provides compelling evidence that he wasn't anywhere near Cambodia at the time - whatever he stated later

I think you are interpreting a selective portion of his diary that was cited by his opponents. My understanding is that the adjacent pages of his diary that were not cited by his opponents support his claim. I recently looked this up. But I am quite open to any evidence you might have and are willing to cite in favor of your statement. On what do you base your belief?

 

[Noztradamus]

I think you are interpreting a selective portion of his diary that was cited by his opponents. My understanding is that the adjacent pages of his diary that were not cited by his opponents support his claim. I recently looked this up. But I am quite open to any evidence you might have and are willing to cite in favor of your statement. On what do you base your belief?

John 11-35. There's no great mystery. You just have to match the movement of Kerry's little boat detailed in the Boston Globe extract of his war diary for 24 December 1968 with a large scale map of Indochina. No way he could have made it to Cambodia.

 

[Giordano]

John 11-35. There's no great mystery. You just have to match the movement of Kerry's little boat detailed in the Boston Globe extract of his war diary for 24 December 1968 with a large scale map of Indochina. No way he could have made it to Cambodia.

I was just about to clarify my post. I see a significant amount of evidence he was in Cambodia in Jan and Feb, less clear about Christmas. Is Christmas specifically "the time'" you refer to?

The January 1969 timeline would also match up with Nixon's Presidency.