Skepticism and the memo controversy

[Meadmaker]

It seems to me that the memo controversy ought to be viewed very differently within this community (randi.org, that is) than in other places. The fact that this doesn't appear to be the case is somewhat disturbing to me.

To my way of thinking, I wouldn't care one way or another about the contents of the memo. Let us assume that the memos are real, just for the sake of argument. I, a genuine, bona-fide, Bush hater, wouldn't care. The real import of the memos is that Geoge W. Bush used family connections to get into the Guard to avoid service in Vietnam. Then, he sort of marginally carried out the requirements of service. In fact, he probably missed one or two of the requirements, but got a pass from superiors who didn't think it was all that important.

Hello? We already knew that. Really. I knew that. Did anyone not know that? Does W deny that? I suppose if these memos are true that we have a "smoking gun" that says he didn't meet the requirements. Does anyone care? His superior officers didn't care. Why should you? I'm willing to bet that there were thousands and thousands of honorably discharged vets from the Guard and every other branch of the service that missed out on some aspect of their requirements. If it wasn't an issue with the Guard, it isn't an issue with me. In other words, these memos mean absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, maybe a lot of people care about such things. Fine. That's a political judgement. To me, deficits are important. To others, gun rights are important. Maybe to some people, whether or not one served in the military is important. If that's you, then vote for the guy who you think did the right thing 35 years ago. To me, that isn't important, but if it is to you, make sure you cast your one vote appropriately.

However, there is a second question, and that is whether or not these memos are real. That is not a political question. That's a scientific one. And here, on this forum, I would like to see people demanding a scientific investigation, and not jumping to conclusions prematurely based on very little evidence and a lot of hearsay.

Frankly, the arguments from the "these memos are forgeries" crowd sound an awful lot like all the conspiracy books I've read about November 22, 1963. For example:

"Typewriters couldn't do that!"

Well, yes, they could. Not all of them, but some of them.

"This font didn't exist!"

Yes, it did. Not the computer version. But the reason they made the computer version was to make it look like the one from the old forms.

"I knew this guy, and he would never have said this!"

Umm. Yeah. And Jack Ruby was a nice, even-tempered, friendly fellow. Maybe his wife and son are right, but this "evidence" is absolutely the weakest form imaginable.

"Don't believe it! It comes from a Democrat!"

And probably a Warren Commission supporter as well. It's an ad hominem.

"Our experts say these are forged"

Oh, please. And our learned doctor says the shot had to come from the front. Fine. I can't stand it when someone quotes "our experts" and won't tell you anything except the conclusion of their expert. At least tell us what kind of credentials they have.

So what's my point?

My point is that we should investigate these allegations of document forgery seriously, and scientifically. If, indeed, they can't be authenticated, then whoever produced them has some real explaining to do. I know that if they turn out to be forged, and if anyone in the Kerry camp had anything in the least to do with this, then that would make me rethink my vote. I don't care about the contents, but that sort of dirty trick is lower than low, and I couldn't vote for anyone who tolerated it.

However, so far, the evidence of forgery that I have seen is really flimsy. The stuff about superscripts and typefaces is demonstrably false. Other "evidence" consists of a group of people who say, "I think they are forgeries."

Personally, my biggest reason for believing that they are authentic is they don't say anything worth forging. The fact that some people think their contents matter is in itself a worthy topic for discussion, I suppose, but, if I assume they are true, I didn't learn anything from them, and I, for one don't care what JFK 2.0 did in Vietnam, or what W did in Texas or Alabama. And, frankly, I doubt anyone else does, either. The people in my office who have strong opinions on this subject, seem to have already had strong opinions on the Presidential race before these memos surface.

Before we reach the conclusion that someone has managed to trump up a bunch of documents and feed them to the mass media that allegedly informs our nation, let's see some real evidence of forgery. So far, I haven't seen any, but I'm sure that if there is some, it will come to light. Until then, keep an open, but skeptical, mind.

 

[corplinx]

If you haven't seen good evidence that these are forgeries, you should try opening your eyes.

I don't want to rehash this here but this is to me is a political skeptic litmus test. Sorta like evolution is is for a science skeptic.

 

[corplinx]

From CBSNEWS.COM:

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

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by 60 Minutes, she said.

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

Funny, it looks like the independent parts of the newsroom dont want to be associated with Rather and 60 Minutes at this point.

Whereas the newsteam behind this article from CBSNews.com give the word of a credible document analyst, 60 Minutes continues to claim they have unnamed analysts who verified it.

 

[crimresearch]

Your definition of 'skepticism' and 'scientific investigation' seems to call for taking a personal opinion, and refusing to look at any evidence that contradicts it.
While that is a common tactic, it is a specious one.
You make contrived attributions about what 'the arguments from the "these memos are forgeries crowd"...' are, while ignoring certain key elements, such as the Staudt issue.

There has been no monolithic 'these memos are forgeries crowd' here at JREF, there have been individual people asking pointed questions about inconsistencies in the CBS story, and rejecting CBS tap dancing, while pointing out past media fabrications.

Sorry to break it to you, but that makes them skeptics, by definition.

 

[Meadmaker]

Whereas the newsteam behind this article from CBSNews.com give the word of a credible document analyst, 60 Minutes continues to claim they have unnamed analysts who verified it.

The "unnamed analyst" is named Marcel Matley. I don't know what he does for a living, except consult with CBS news.

Crim,

The "these memos are forgeries" crowd I was referring to were the talking heads I have seen in the media, and especially the very partisan media folks, like Limbaugh and Hannity.

However, I'm disappointed that I haven't seen more skepticism about the claims here on this community.

As skeptics, we should ask the pointed questions. I agree. But some of those pointed questions have been answered. I think some people corresponding on this forum leapt to a conclusion before the evidence was in. Since the evidence isn't in, anyone who has reached a conclusion has done that. Right now, what we have are separately quoted "experts", and nothing else.

For my part, I am suspicious of the forgery claims for two reasons. First, the documents aren't worth forging. Second, the most frequently cited expert, Ms. Lines made some demonstrably false arguments. So, I am skeptical.

And I'm still open to the possibility that these are forgeries. As I said, if it turns out they are and the Kerry camp had anything to do with it, he won't get my vote. I'll leave the top spot blank.

Furthermore, even if they are authentic and the Kerry camp was behind their release, it would make me less inclined to vote for Kerry. The evidence for this does seem high, but I haven't reached any conclusion on this, either. This is a political "dirty trick" that is, in my opinion, absolutely irrelevant to the current campaign. Candidates who engage in such absurdities don't earn my respect.

I have one prediction, it two parts.

First, it will become abundantly clear that typewriters could indeed make the famous th superscript at the time the memos were written. Second, a large part of the blogosphere will continue to cite the th as "proof" of forgery, right up until election day.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The "unnamed analyst" is named Marcel Matley. I don't know what he does for a living, except consult with CBS news.

Different analyst. Matley is a handwriting expert and librarian. According to Matley, he looked at only one of the memos -- at least that was the latest that I have heard -- and felt that the one signature on that document looked authentic.

Of course, it was a photocopy. That makes it hard to verify, as an original signature could always be scanned in. I am also not sure which of the memos he looked at -- as several have not been challenged.

In answer to the above, CBS has indicated that it consulted an expert or experts, but has not identified anyone else. That is the "unnamed" expert referred to above, not Matley.

However, I'm disappointed that I haven't seen more skepticism about the claims here on this community.

There are about half a dozen to a dozen people that have written on this subject out of the ebtire board -- and several have only asked about particular points. I am going to wait to become disappointed in anyone until we have a bit more interaction.

As skeptics, we should ask the pointed questions. I agree. But some of those pointed questions have been answered. I think some people corresponding on this forum leapt to a conclusion before the evidence was in. Since the evidence isn't in, anyone who has reached a conclusion has done that. Right now, what we have are separately quoted "experts", and nothing else.

There is quite a bit of information out there that people have not cited. However, some of the references indicate that several people are aware of the information. The "experts" -- perhaps I should have put quotes around the word when speaking of Matley above, or is it just certain people with expertise that get scare quotes? -- have done more than given opinions, quite a few have listed their reasons for their conclusions and have offered suggestions regarding how to duplicate at least one of the memos at issue.

For my part, I am suspicious of the forgery claims for two reasons. First, the documents aren't worth forging. Second, the most frequently cited expert, Ms. Lines made some demonstrably false arguments. So, I am skeptical.

It would help us to sink our teeth into the issues if we had more than a sweeping conclusion at this point. The first reason has nothing to do with the actual analysis. The second picks one expert and offers a global condemnation, without much more.

I am withholding any firm opinion on the documents, but there do appear to be some legitimate questions about them. At the very least, I think CBS should release the "originals" (they are not apparently originals, but by that I mean the actual documents that were being used, and not sopies) for outside analysis and have everyone look at the same evidence.

Presently, ABC and CNN (neither part of a vast right wing conspiracy, as far as I can tell) have released reports from their own experts that question the authenticity of the documents. It is not just CBS against Ms. Lines.

And I'm still open to the possibility that these are forgeries.

Which is a reasonable position until we've seen more.

I have one prediction, it two parts.

First, it will become abundantly clear that typewriters could indeed make the famous th superscript at the time the memos were written. Second, a large part of the blogosphere will continue to cite the th as "proof" of forgery, right up until election day.

I would like to see support on that. Do you know the models of typewriters that could make the subscripts in the 1972 time frame? I am interested in seeing if such a machine could realistically be used by the Guard at that time. The only notes I have seen on it indicate that it was theoretically possible to find a machine to do smaller size subscripts, but that it would be prohibitively expensive.

I think that the best course of action would be for CBS to allow exmination of their originals. I would also like it to identify where these documents came from originally if they turn out to be forgeries.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I have done some additional searching.

The best try for a typewriter that could have made the memo seems to be the IBM Selectric Composer -- introduced in the late 60's. At least some of the features talked about could be copied by this machine, but I am still looking around for information one way or the other. I have not seen anything about price or whether the Guard or Reserves used them, etc. I am still hunting.

edited to add: I call it a typewriter, but additional looking makes it appear to be more of a type-setting machine.

 

[American]

I made a New Years prediction that Dan Rather would be sacked. It looks like that's coming true, as I accurately predicted.


I don't need all this "evidence" that you guys are into. I KNEW this was going to happen last year!

 

[Meadmaker]

There are about half a dozen to a dozen people that have written on this subject out of the ebtire board -- and several have only asked about particular points. I am going to wait to become disappointed in anyone until we have a bit more interaction.

That's fair, although a couple of folks have referred to forged documents as if it were certain that these were forgeries. I don't think anyone can say that with certainty at this point.



At the very least, I think CBS should release the "originals" (they are not apparently originals, but by that I mean the actual documents that were being used, and not sopies) for outside analysis and have everyone look at the same evidence.

I agree with that, and I can't imagine them not doing that, very soon.



I would like to see support on that. Do you know the models of typewriters that could make the subscripts in the 1972 time frame? (This was in regard to whether or not typewriters could make the "th".)

I don't know. I am taking it on faith that this could be done, and I am assuming that someone will indeed produce such a typewriter. The only thing I have seen so far is CBS' comments that similar documents were found among official documents that everyone agrees were not forgeries at the time.

This illustrates something, though. This is a trivial point to verify. So far, it hasn't been verified, but one way or another, we will know the answer soon, but an awful lot of people have already reached a conclusion.

In a way, on this point, I fit into that category. I have accepted CBS's explanation that similar documents are in the official record. However, I remain open-minded to some extent on the subject. I know that if my position is correct, it will be trivial to verify. If it isn't verified, by pointing to a typewriter that could make the mark, then that will mean my belief is incorrect.

I'll add something to my earlier prediction. I predicted that a typewriter would be found to make the mark, but that a lot of people would continue to cite that mark as "proof" of forgery. I'll add that if no typewriter is found that could make the mark, a lot of people will continue to insist on their authenticity. In other words, when the evidence is all in, a huge number of people will continue to ignore it.

I would also like it to identify where these documents came from originally if they turn out to be forgeries.

Personally, I would like to know their origins even if they aren't forgeries. This is a useless, dirty, trick. If Kerry insiders are involved, I want them fired. If Kerry himself was involved. I'll vote for Badnarak, or leave the top blank.

 

[American]

Variable-width characters is the real killer. "l" and "w" are way different now, thanks to modern technology. In the old days, when things sucked, they took up the exact same width when you wrote them with a type-writer.

 

[corplinx]

Variable-width characters is the real killer. "l" and "w" are way different now, thanks to modern technology. In the old days, when things sucked, they took up the exact same width when you wrote them with a type-writer.

Pish posh, obviously the national guard was using highend typesetting machines to write short memos. And yes, although a credible professional analyst can't duplicate the memo on one of those machines, you just have to plug your ears with cotton like the people on this board.

Please do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[crimresearch]

Sorry Meadmaker, my skepticism leads me to notice that Staudt being retired for 18 months before he took part in these events is highly unlikely.
And the fact that a typewriter of that era *could* have produced the documents in no way proves that they weren't produced last year, or last week by said typewriter, or by an identical computer font.

And as long as CBS keeps dodging those questions, and refuses to turn the originals over to independent examiners, I'm going to remain skeptical.

If they do so, I'll still probably regard the whole thing as campaign tactics designed to divert attention from the candidates current suitability for the jobs (both candidates BTW).

 

[Dorian Gray]

So Corplinx, these documents are forgeries while the claims against Kerry are all true. Got it. Nice and unbiased.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Variable-width characters is the real killer. "l" and "w" are way different now, thanks to modern technology. In the old days, when things sucked, they took up the exact same width when you wrote them with a type-writer.

Um, see.... no.

Proportional spacing on typewriters has been around for decently long time. How long?

This long.

And by the 70s the Selectric II was already out in force (not to mention the Selectric I) -- it's not at all unlikely that an office would have had one. In fact, it's probably less likely that an office wouldn't have had one than that it would have.

Also note that

[...]specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant.[emphasis mine]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents?pg=full

The real point, though, as noted above, is that it doesn't matter -- these documents don't allege anything new. They only make a little more explicit exactly what was already in the documents released by the White House four years ago.

What really amazes me is how quickly the issue shifted from what the documents said to the provenance of a handful of the more recent ones.

 

[BobK]

Sorry, but due to excessive hits, this page is temporarily out of service.
Please check back after the election.
For those who want my opinion...the documents appear to be done in Word, and then copied repeatedly to make them "fuzzy". They use features that were not available on office typewriters the 1970s, specifically the combination of proportional spacing with superscript font. The IBM Executive has proportional spacing, but used fixed type bars. The Selectric has changeable type elements, but fixed spacing (some models could be selected at 10 or 12 pitch, but that's all). The Selectric Composer was not an office typewriter, but apparently did use proportional spacing. These were very expensive machines, used by printing offices, not administrative offices. (see Shape of Days for a look at what it would take to make the memos on a Composer, and watch out for that invisible pink unicorn behind you!)

Clipped from this site.
http://www.selectric.org/selectric/index.html

You will find a visual comparision of computer and typewriter printouts there.

In my opinion, this seems to make forgery extremely likely. Unless someone can come up with another machine capable of doing the work.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Also note that
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents?pg=full

Except that the expert that the Boston Globe cited has since said that their version of his interview is about 180 degrees wrong:

"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it...but after looking at this more, there are still many more things that say this is bogus...there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ...More things were looked into; more things about IBM options. Even if you bought special (superscripting) keys, it's not right. There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter."

There was an interview on INDCjournal.com -- one of the blogs that originally got into analysing the documents -- where Brouffard reported that he was "p*ssed off" at the Globe for distorting his opinion for their story so thoroughly.

 

[Luke T.]

The real point, though, as noted above, is that it doesn't matter -- these documents don't allege anything new.

Then you are missing the point. These documents are being presented as more than allegations. They are presented as evidence of prior allegations.

 

[Luke T.]

I am curious to know if all the particular idiosyncracies of these documents were possible on one typewriter using one typewriter ball, or if it would be necessary to use two or more typewriter balls to recreate the documents.

edited to add: And where are the orginals?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

just saw this:


http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=9/13

Killian died in 1984. His widow, Marjorie, says the memos don't sound at all like her late husband. In fact, she says, he didn't keep much in the way of files. What he did keep tended to be handwritten, she says.

Besides, she adds, her husband thought the young Bush was "an excellent aviator." Why, then, would he write such a memo?

OK, maybe you don't think a widow is a credible witness. How about a half-dozen document experts? Are they credible?

That's how many experts ABC News assembled to inspect CBS' memos. The experts concluded the memos look like forgeries.

Ouch.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

One more while I am playing hookey from work:

NRO noted previous statements from the Matley handwriting expert relied on by CBS:

"In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible." - quote from a Sept. 27, 2002 article in "The Practical Litigator." (emph. added.)

It is unfortunate that Mr. Matley is today asked to conclude that a document is authentic by judging a photocopied signature . . . .