September 13, 2004
UNBELIEVABLE
"With critics of Democratic challenger John Kerry raising unsubstantiated claims that he exaggerated his heroism as a swift-boat commander in Vietnam," writes Time magazine’s Amanda Ripley, "the matter of Bush's own service is back in the spotlight."
Ripley’s piece is possibly the most grotesque example of evasive, disingenuous, smoke-and-mirrors journalism committed this year. A warning comes early, as Ripley characterises reaction to CBS’s Bush memo claims as simply a whole lot of unfocussed bedlam:
Various search dogs, partisan and not, barked madly up and down the hills of people's memories last week, sometimes scenting truth and other times falling off the cliff entirely. CBS released several damning new memos, which may or may not be authentic (more on that later), that sent forensic experts researching the history of the type font Times New Roman and bloggers dusting off their old IBM typewriters. Welcome to the final stage of a tight race. Now let's pause for a few reality checks.
Several paragraphs later, having awarded a few free kicks to the anti-Bush team, Ripley gets to work on those CBS memos. Unsubstantiated or not, she’s quite happy to recite their contents:
New egregious claims about Bush's service are made in four memos released by CBS last Wednesday dating from 1972 and 1973. The network has not revealed how it obtained the documents but says they are from the personal files of Lieut. Colonel Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander in Texas, now deceased. If authentic, they demonstrate more favoritism toward Bush than previously indicated. In one document, Killian states that he and his superior, Major General Bobby Hodges, were pressured by Walter Staudt, the Texas National Guard commander, to "sugar coat" an evaluation of Bush. Hodges, who initially thought the memos were handwritten and authentic, now says he thinks they are fake. He told TIME last week, "There was no political pressure that I can remember." And Staudt's military records show that he had left the Guard by the time the memo was written, according to the Dallas Morning News. A TIME reporter called and visited Staudt's home but got no response. Killian's son Gary, who served in the Guard alongside his father from 1971 to 1979, says he believes the documents are fake, in part because he remembers that his father admired Bush.
A pretence of balance is still evident. But now things get seriously weird:
So far, forensic and typewriter experts consulted by TIME and other major media organizations have not reached a consensus on the authenticity of the memos.
A consensus? Does everyone have to agree that the documents are fake for them to be so proved? (Incidentally, according to Slate: "The typography experts quoted by major media organizations are nearly unanimous in their doubts that the Killian memos are genuine.") Next, Ripley produces compelling evidence that crushes the document-doubters:
Some insist it would have been nearly impossible for a 1970s-era typewriter to produce the memos because of the letter spacing in the documents and the use of a raised and compact th symbol. But Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City who worked for IBM repairing typewriters from 1973 to 1985, says those experts "are full of crap. They just don't know." Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th.
And that’s all you need to know. Forget the detailed, near-microscopic examination of the CBS documents carried out here and here, among many other sites (and reviewed here); these people are "full of crap", says the one guy to whom Time gives any space. Hey, Glennon -- go here to collect your $37,900!
Another memo released by CBS, if real, indicates that when Bush missed his physical, he was disobeying a direct order from Killian to get one. But Hodges, who is now retired, says missing the physical was "no big deal." CBS broadcast a special segment wholeheartedly defending its report two days after it aired.
Which proves the documents were genuine, I guess. Well, Ripley seems convinced.
Will any of this matter come Election Day? The truth is, while Kerry may have taken a hit in the polls as a result of the largely bogus criticism of his war record, Bush, as the incumbent, is not as vulnerable — even if the accusations are more credible. Americans have spent four years watching Bush as President. Kerry is the unknown, and as with any stranger at the gate, people are wary. What's more, the breathless debate over typewriter fonts last week shifted the debate away from Bush's questionable record.
That’s all this debate was about -- silly typewriter fonts! All of you people should grow up. In a sidebar, Time offers an in-depth analysis (0.03mm is still a "depth") of the claims made by CBS’s critics and the network’s piss-poor responses:
1 TYPEFACE
The shape is similar to Times New Roman, which is popular on today's computer. CBS counters that the font was first available in the 1930s2 SPACING
The words have proportional spacing; some letters take up more space than others across the line. Some typewriters had this feature in the early 1970s3 SUPER-SCRIPT
Experts say only customized typewriters had a key for the small th. Other typewritten Bush records show a similar — but not identical — feature4 SIGNATURE
CBS insists that Lieut. Colonel Jerry Killian's signature matches those on other documents, proving authenticity
What term doesn’t appear anywhere in Ripley’s report? Microsoft Word. Believe it or not.
UPDATE. Curse those right-wing nuts:
On Friday, according to CBS News sources, Rather spent the day on the phone and dealing with CBS suits who were nervous about the fall out from the story. "All Dan could say was that this was an attack from the right-wing nuts, and that we should have expected this, given the stakes," says a CBS News producer. "He was terribly defensive and nervous. You could tell."
Meanwhile, over the weekend journalists from around the country were attempting to track down the original source of the documents. "We're having a hard time tracking how we got the documents," says the CBS News producer. "There are at least two people in this building who have insisted we got copies of these memos from the Kerry campaign by way of an additional source. We do not have the originals, and our sources have indicated to us that we will not be getting the originals. How that is possible I don't know."
UPDATE II. Dan goes wobbly:
Dan Rather told B&C Friday he believes documents used in a controversial 60 Minutes story were "authentic," but did open the door to the possibility he’d been duped.
UPDATE III. USA Today has six Bush memos -- the same four as 60 Minutes plus two others. The paper explains:
USA Today obtained copies of the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired Wednesday, from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations. The person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades.
Knowledge of TANG operations, eh? Looks like Newsweek is on the right path:
Posted by Tim Blair at September 13, 2004 03:13 PMA principal source for the CBS story about President Bush's National Guard duty was Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former Guard officer who lives in Baird, Texas, who says he was present at Guard headquarters in Austin in 1997 when a top aide to then Governor Bush ordered records sanitized to protect the Boss, Newsweek reports in the current issue. Typed memos from the early '70s suggesting officers were pressured to give Bush special treatment and "sugarcoat" increasingly negative evaluations were a central part of the CBS report.
Other Guard officials disputed Burkett's account and the Bush aide involved, Joe Allbaugh, called it "absolute garbage." Burkett may have a motive to make trouble for the powers that be. In 1998, he grew gravely ill on a Guard mission to Panama, causing him to be hospitalized, and he suffered two nervous breakdowns. He unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses.
Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th.
Then, to coin an original phrase,"Just Do It".
Let's see that example. Come on, here's your chance to destroy most of the Evil Side of the blogoshere. Type me up some memos, bitch.
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 03:25 PM"What term doesn’t appear anywhere in Ripley’s report? Microsoft Word. Believe it or not."
The fact that you think that that's somehow important just shows how little you understand about this whole 'forgery' sideshow.
I'm sure it's hard for you and your fans to accept that the documents might just be real; but the substance of them will have to be dealt with eventually.
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 03:28 PMHi! I'm Jack Strocchi, and I'm a monomaniac! I insist upon posting off-topic comments in every other entry in Tim Blair's weblog because that is the only way I can get attention!
[The off-topic comment that was here was replaced by the above courtesy of The Management.]
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at September 13, 2004 at 03:31 PM"I'm sure it's hard for you and your fans to accept that the documents might just be real; but the substance of them will have to be dealt with eventually."
HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
(Pause to wipe tears from eyes.)
HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
Thanks, Jesse, for that great imitation of a seriously mentally-impaired True Believer™!
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 13, 2004 at 03:33 PM"The network has not revealed how it obtained the documents but says they are from the personal files of Lieut. Colonel Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander in Texas, now deceased. If authentic, they demonstrate more favoritism toward Bush than previously indicated."
I have documents which, if authentic, prove that Amanda Ripley clubbed baby seals in 1988, is responsible for the Exxon-Valdez disaster, and has eaten several babies. At this point I am not willing to reveal how I obtained them, but I will say that Ripley wrote them in human blood and doodled pentagrams in the margins.
Based on this evidence, I not only call for her immediate dismissal, public humiliation and possibly some sort of exorcism, but I also expect to be taken seriously.
Andrew D.
Posted by: Andrew D. at September 13, 2004 at 03:34 PMAnd thank you Andrea for so nicely proving my point for me ;)
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 03:36 PMWhat point was that? That you are under the impression that a sweeping "U r all stoopid" statement is good enough to wipe away empirical evidence? That's just sad.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 13, 2004 at 03:39 PMAnd somethign else that doesn't appear in the TIME report: That the guy who was supposedly pressuring everyone about Bush left the Guard 1.5 years before the bloody memo was written!
Posted by: James Morrow at September 13, 2004 at 03:40 PMThe point of course is that it doesn't matter whether the documents are real or not. George Bush has never run on his ability to do the job of a junior officer, but that of the most senior officer their is. He has done the job well.
John Kerry on the other hand said that his service 35 years ago was relevant. When he turned out to have lied about that service it just showed that his character is too deeply flawed to be a creditable Commader-in-Chief.
Posted by: Toryhere at September 13, 2004 at 03:43 PMCBS insists that Lieut. Colonel Jerry Killian's signature matches those on other documents, proving authenticityNot even close.
The fact that you think that that's somehow important just shows how little you understand about this whole 'forgery' sideshow.Sir, you are being deliberately obtuse. It is important because every single one of the documents in question, when typed up in Word, in the default settings, match exactly with no additional input by the user. They cannot be reproduced exactly in any other manner, even with extraordinary efforts to do so by the typist.
If you're still convinced they're genuine, prove it and there's a $37,900 reward waiting for you.
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 03:55 PMAndrea, neither you nor anyone you know possesses any 'imperical evidence' relating to the authenticity of these documents. You have nothing more than a collection of sophmoric attempts to disprove the authenticity of the documents based on anacdotael evidence, pure conjecture, and a set of very low quality images of the documents which have been posted on the web. The fact that you think that all of that somehow equals empirical evidence (note the spelling) is, to borrow a phrase, "just sad."
Don't worry though, if the documents really do turn out to be authentic, you can always share and take comfort in ToryHere's masterful line of self-delusion; facts are only important if you can use them to attack your enemies.
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:02 PMJJJ, I want Kerry to win as well, but anyone who harbours the slightest doubt that these documents were forged, by whom and for whatever reason, has brain damage. Simple as that. The Time report really is the strangest thing I have read all year.
Thanks for your support William, but I don't care who wins. The suggestion that I must have brain damage has done little to sway me from my opinion; probably what you'd expect from someone with brain damage, isn't it?
Spiny, apologies for being obtuse. This issue has absolutley nothing to do with Microsoft Word, apart from the fact that it is the most commonly used word processing program. Identical results can be seen using other word processing packages as well.
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:11 PM"If you have an interest in the strange, unusual, interesting, odd and just plain wierd, well you've certainly come to the right place!" After all these years Ripley's long lost daughter has re-emerged. Oh happy days. After all, it's not the nature of the evidence but he seriousness of the charge that matters.
Posted by: YoJimbo at September 13, 2004 at 04:14 PMOkay JJJ, lets ignore the typographical angle, the incorrect military formatting and the fact that the alleged author didnt type, and please just answer away that fact that the person who is alleged to be bringing pressure in favour of Bush was no longer in the Guard at the time the memo was allegedly written. I await your response.
Posted by: attila at September 13, 2004 at 04:16 PMIdentical results can be seen using other word processing packages as well.
Then let's see it! It will be a good warm up for doing it on a typewriter.
David, you can download the freely available openoffice if you'd like.
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:21 PMWhy would I need that? It's your false claim.
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 04:22 PMFrom the ASpec story:
Kerry said that he would always tell the public the truth, and if the audience didn't believe him, they could "[g]o to a web site. It can be johnkerry.com or go some other place. Go to truth.com, if there is one, and find out what's really happening," Kerry said.
God, that's hilarious.
Posted by: Dylan at September 13, 2004 at 04:23 PMJJJ, please explain to me just one thing:
"CYA"
Why, why, why would someone put an extremely non-official term like that as the header of a memo? Why would he write a memo describing his own unethical action at all, let alone signing it and leaving it where it could be found? If you can give a plausible explanation as to why the man would type those three little letters on a memo to himself, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by: Sonetka at September 13, 2004 at 04:25 PM".. but the substance of them will have to be dealt with eventually."
Well, you just go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. Deal with the substance however you think is best.
Believe it or not, some of us think the 'substance' is not worth the time and scandal to CBS. Even if those memos were 100% genuine IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Bush is an admitted alcohol abuser (in his past). He has already mentioned doing things he's NOT proud of. Bush's guard service was more than fulfilled per the terms set by Uncle Sam. So what do we learn from these new Revelations? Nada.
NOTHING in the memos tells us anything NEW. If we believe them as true, BIG DEAL. Bush admitted to being an asshole at that age, and beyond, because of his drinking. Should we faint upon finding proof he really WAS an asshole?
These memos are a LOSE-LOSE situation for the DNC and the media. There is NO WIN here. Ditch the memos as soon as possible as a point. The longer this drags on, the more laughable everyone looks. Bush is the only winner.
Look around the web at the humor being produced because of 'memogate' or 'Rathergate'. The only people not enjoying this are the DNC 'true believers' and CBS (plus other news media morons).
I haven't enjoyed myself on the web like this in a long time. Absolutely fascinating to witness what is happening.
If I were part of CBS' management, I'd be shi**ing bricks right about now. Nothing like having your news division's star reporter a major laughing stock on the web. How long will it take for CBS news to live this down?
How long are you prepared to wait attila?
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:26 PMJesus is the unknown source
- Jesus wants Bush out of office.
- Microsoft Word is a gift from heaven
- Jesus sent the documents to Dan Rather using a Moses and the burning Bush moment.
- Dan Rather considers Jesus an unimpeachable source and won't back down from the memos.
- Dan Rather won't identify Jesus as his source because he doesn't want to appear crazy.
JJJ
Identical results can be seen using other word processing packages as well.Really? Got a link? I doubt it could be done without extraordinary effort.
One thing that the revelation that these are Word documents distracts from is that the signatures, which should have been the first thing examined, are not even close. Jerry Killian's signature is very consistant on all the known documents presented, but the signatures on CBS's memos vary widely and none of them resemble the real thing. The evidence of forged signatures is every bit as damning.
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 04:32 PMDavid, I provided you with a mechanism to verify my claim. If you're too lazy to do that (well evidenced by the fact that you are presuming that my claim is false without even seeming to understand it) then I'm afraid I can't help you.
Sonetka, prehaps I'm in the minority (hearty Guffas all around) but it's preceisly the presence of seeming aberrations like "CYA" that convince me that the documents are authentic.
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:34 PMDan's twitchin' like a one-eyed muskrat on a mossy log.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at September 13, 2004 at 04:34 PMSpiny, I provided a link above to openoffice. Please feel free to give it a try.
Chris, if no one cares about the substance of the documents, why are you having so much fun?
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:39 PMpresuming that my claim is false without even seeming to understand it
I understand it completely. You don't seem to know much about typesetting or word processing.
You are only presuming your claim is true. Why would I want to test your claim, when you are too lazy to test it?
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 04:41 PMIt's over.
Sorry J.J.J.
Love from fly-over country. (Minnesota)
Posted by: Thomas at September 13, 2004 at 04:41 PMJJJ,
...it's preceisly the presence of seeming aberrations like "CYA" that convince me that the documents are authentic.LMAO! They're such obvious clumsy fakes, they must be real, because who would be so foolish as to try pass off something like it, unless they were real! Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 04:42 PM
James Jesse Jones:
So the possibility that the results can be duplicated in other word processing packages proves, what, exactly? As far as I know, OpenOffice wasn't available in the 70s.
Admit it -- you're clutching at straws. Good thing I'm not counting on you to return here and post when Rather finally gets around to apologizing on national television.
Posted by: david at September 13, 2004 at 04:43 PMUm I hate to be legalistic (who am I kidding? I just LOVE to be legalistic), but JJJ there is no empirical evidence to establish that these documents are genuine.
What you have is documents obtained in an unknown fashion, from personal files the existence of which is disputed by the purported author's surviving relatives, one of which it should be noted was also an officer in the TANG. The contents of which clashes with the contents of other genuine letters/memoranda known to have been written at about the same time.
Coincidentally at least some if not all of these memoranda can be reproduced by using the default settings of one the most common word processing packages on the planet, but for the supposed author to have produced them, it looks like he would have had to have them professionally typed/printed. Which I think a reasonable person would conceed, is a little odd for a full bird colonel in the TANG to be doing for a memoranda written about a 1st lt who was coming to the end of his flight status. Best of luck in trying to prove those documents in any court in the English speaking world, pal!
Finally who even if they were authentic (which patently they are not) they scarcely amount to a scandel. Even if they showed the Bush liked to snort lines of coke off the wings of his plane before going on illegal flights to strafe endangered wildlife, who gives a rats?? Bush has not run for reelection on the fact that 30 odd years ago he was in the TANG or that only veterans of some dimension can be POTUS. Bush and in Australia John Howard, are getting support from a lot of people who whilst unimpressed with their domestic agendas (in my case Howard's propensity to spend like a drunken bureaucrat) believe that we are at war and that they are the best available candidates to be in charge.
JJJ,
Just out of curiosity, have you tried it? If so, post a image link. Many people have tried to replicate them in other ways, and have not gotten an exact match.
Also, I wasn't aware that OpenOffice was in use by the Texas Air National Guard in 1972. How odd.
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 04:49 PMDavid, based on your comments, I'll warrant that I know at least as much about it as you do, and probably more. I know that my claim is true, and I provided you with a mechanism to verify it.
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:49 PMSadly, there are some pretty delusional types like J. J. J. here. I was reading some comments over Washington monthly where some lefties believe that even if Rather admits they are forgeries, it must be true. They had even "unearthed" some new memos at DemocraticUnderground.com or some such place.
No, we'll only get satisfaction in watching Rather go down. The moonbats will find something else to flap about. Very sad.
Posted by: Stan at September 13, 2004 at 04:52 PMIncidentally, I just tried replicating the same document in OpenOffice. OpenOffice is, of course, designed to be as close to a clone of MS Word as you can possibly get, but I couldn't get a right-looking document out of it.
First problem: no Times New Roman included in my default install. Maybe I could have got a version of it somehow, but I proceeded with Nimbus Roman instead, which looked pretty similar.
Second problem: it wasn't clever enough to recognise the date as being a date. That meant that it wanted to do the superscript thing on the "th" in the date, whereas MS Word is clever enough to leave it in plain type.
Third problem: The auto-superscript looked wrong. It was too high, and too small.
The spacing wasn't quite right either, but that couldn't be expected when you're using the wrong font.
Posted by: Jorge at September 13, 2004 at 05:00 PMJ^3:
Occam's Razor: One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
So what is more likely:
(A) an officer of the Texas Air National Guard in 1972, one that hated to type, took a personal memo (one that went against his own thoughts and feelings) entitled "CYA" and had it professionally printed,
or
(B) someone in the Kerry camp figured out a way to discredit the President and simply opened Microsoft Word, typed out a letter, ran it through a copy machine with darker contrast settings, then sent it on to CBS?
I know that my claim is true.
Prove it. Else you are a liar.
I used to recreate printouts from arbitrary sources in DTP software for a living. I actually know quite a bit about this very subject. If you try it, since you obviously haven't you will find you are mistaken. After you try that, try it with a mechanical device of any sort. Or, find such an example that anyone has produced. But its better if you do it yourself; there's a US$10,000.00 reward.
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 05:01 PMJJJ
I know that my claim is true, and I provided you with a mechanism to verify it.Oh you're funny. You are the one making the claim, so I think it is up to you to verify it. Just as it is up to CBS to verify these memos... with the opinions of actual professional document examiners, not typewriter repairmen. Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 05:03 PM
Can I be the first to adopt the fall-back position?
"Of course they're fakes - it's obvious - so obvious that it’s suspicious. It's almost as if the Bush supporters did it to frame the Kerry campaign. I mean seriously, if you were forging a 1972 memo you'd use typewriter wouldn't you?"
Time magazine headline:
LINKS DISCOVERED BETWEEN FAKE MEMO AND GOP SUPPORTER
The courier that delivered the package containing to fake memo to Dan Rather is a Republican Party voter, it was revealed yesterday.
Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at September 13, 2004 at 05:04 PMJust a Bloody Lawyer... Even if they, (the MS Word, 97 documents), showed Bush liked to snort lines of coke off the wing of his plane before going on illegal flights to strafe endandered wildlife, who gives a rats?
Perfect, thanks for the visual.
go W!
Posted by: Thomas at September 13, 2004 at 05:06 PMsome lefties believe that even if Rather admits they are forgeries, it must be true.
See, that at least makes some sense. If I made a fake copy of a real document, whatever was in that original would still be true. If one of these memos had an accurate weather report from 1927, it would be true, but still a forgery. But it wouldn't be evidence of those things.
But the nutty thing is those saying that because they believe what's in them, they can't be forgeries. Nevermind what all those pros write about them.
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 05:08 PMDavid [.net]
But its better if you do it yourself; there's a US$10,000.00 reward.The reward is up to US$37,900. See my post upthread. Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 05:09 PM
Actually two of the memos are naturally replicated in default settings. A third one requires shrinking the fontsize from 12pt to 11pt, & a fourth one requires a different fontsize as well. I did that one with 11pt fontsize & a very slight shrinking of the right margin to at least -.03" & at most -0.14" (I called it a right-margin “expansion” or something in an earlier post—I was thinking of the expansion of the typable area). But fontsize & margin variations from default settings are minor & happen often enough.
Another program that uses TrueType fonts might get quite similar spacing. A test might end up telling us that we don’t really know whether the memo was done in Word or WordPerfect. So what?
The script was to get Bush shaken up & so on, to get investigations going into rumors about Bush’s younger days, & so on, excuses to make one day after another the story of one rumor or claim or another, fill the news with such stuff. The Dems are trying to stick to the script despite the mendacity & manipulativeness of its basis, trying to resemble cartoon who stay suspended in the air as long as they don’t notice that they’ve paraded off the edge of a cliff. If the Dems just pretend hard enough.... The Dems’ problem is that they have nothing to say. Whenever Kerry talks about Iraq, he angers either his base or moderate swing voters. The economy is anything but the worst since the Depression, & it’s doing rather well overall. Medical costs would be better if it were not for loathesome people like John Edwards, Esq. Trial lawyers have become politicians before, but Edwards was a particularly destructive trial lawyer & he has particularly strong ties to their lobby & to some of the most destructive trial lawyers in the USA who are among his biggest fundraisers. People distrust the Dems on national security, even Andy Cuomos says his fellow Dems treat discussion of 9/11 like a highway bill. “Bloodless, soulless, and clueless.” Like cornered rats the Democrats are turning extra vicious. They almost got a real leftist in the Presidency in 2000, they really thought AT LAST. So close. Four more years, then they’d do it. History would deliver to them their rightful power, rightful not just in terms of the 2000 election but of, well, history, everything, the universe. Then came 9/11/01. The world is diverging ever farther from the socialist, transnationalist track which they had planned. It’s looking increasingly to them like they missed their big chance, maybe their last chance for a long time. What is the traditional big-government party without power? So they are going insane over what could have been.
Posted by: ForNow at September 13, 2004 at 05:09 PMJJJ... just for the record, if you think the memos are genuine, would you mind telling us;
1)what sort of machine they where written on in 1972?
2)why they quote someone who was 18 months into retirement at the time?
ForNow,
Is it possible that the "shrinkage" may be an artifact of the copying/faxing that was done to "age" them?
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 05:12 PMThere are too many things wrong with the memos for them to possibly be real, but let me address one aspect: even if they could have been created with the technology of the time (and I doubt they could have been), there's no way in heck Killian would have done so. This is because the memos are, by the standards of 1972, typeset, not typewritten. These days, the distinction has been blurred by word processing, but back then, typesetting was a non-trivial skill that required training. Nobody not trained in typesetting would or could sit down at a typesetter to write some memos for filing. It was too difficult and timeconsuming.
The arguments of diehard partisans like Kos et. al. are would apply equally poorly if the memos had been found embroidered on samplers or engraved on granite tombstones. Sure, embroidery and engraved tombstones existed in 1972, but so what? Nobody wrote memos that way.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 13, 2004 at 05:12 PMWilbur:
Your second question is just more evidence to J^3 that the documents are real. Because if they were fakes, there's no way that the forger would have made that kind of mistake.
Welcome to CrazyWorld.
Posted by: david at September 13, 2004 at 05:14 PMJJJ these guys are so deluded go here.for the latest proof that the memos are real
Posted by: aussiecom at September 13, 2004 at 05:15 PMI said: Another program that uses TrueType fonts might get quite similar spacing. A test might end up telling us that we don’t really know whether the memo was done in Word or WordPerfect. So what?
Actually that would make things even WORSE for Rather. It gives the memos even more natural & easy ways to end up produced on a computer. And it doesn’t help the electric typewriter arguement one bit.
Now this should have been realized by the person who made the argument. But this person is more interested in agitprop & trying to score debating points, than in the logical structure & implications of his own argument. Kind of person who shows up at a town meeting, looking around sullenly, nobody’s ever seen him before, looks like he spent hours getting there. Proceeds to make a strident speech & ask pointed angry questions as if playing to an audience of oppressed types. Then goes away. Agitprop. All that effort to plant a few seeds in the minds of a few in the whole crowd. The rest of us are not this person’s audience.
Posted by: ForNow at September 13, 2004 at 05:15 PMThis is because the memos are, by the standards of 1972, typeset, not typewritten.
I love the "but Times New Roman was invented in 1931" angle. Yes, he could have sent them off to be set and printed in London by the Times. Or, if he waited a bit, sent them up to W 43rd ST to have the NYT do it.
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 05:17 PMSpiny Norman: I reduced the fontsize not in order to make it look the same size as on the memos. I made no assumption about the original size of the memos. Changing the fontsize was in order to get all the same line breaks without adjusting the margins. See my long post in the thread for Tim’s entry “What's the Frequency, Kerneth.”
Posted by: ForNow at September 13, 2004 at 05:18 PMPowerlineblog.com has a very interesting essay called "Suicide Bombers and CBS News". Scroll down to read it.
The thesis is that we believed pre-9/11 that terrorists valued their own lives and that mainstream media valued their own reputations for fairness and accuracy.
9/11 showed terrorists will die for their cause and that CBS, AP (in its 'Bush audience boos Clinton' lie), and now we can add, this Time piece by Ripley, the MSM will commit professional suicide to bar Bush from another term.
Truly amazing!
And JJJ--are your misspellings ("imperical","sophmoric","anacdotael") in slagging Andrea intentional? I think you are really Karl Rove, out to discredit the Left yet again by posing as a moron.
Naughty, naughty Karl Rove!
Posted by: JDB at September 13, 2004 at 05:19 PMJJJ - I'm sorry to be rude, but if the presence of aberrations like "CYA" help to convince you, then by your logic there is no such thing as a proveable fraud. Anything that supports authenticity is OK, and anything that argues against it is also OK, because hey, weird coincidences happen, don't they? Using that logic, it would be impossible to disprove the Hitler diaries - their inconsistencies were just an assemblage of natural, convincing "aberrations." The great frauds of William-Henry Ireland and John Payne Collier would be right up your alley; they're crammed full of aberrations, and therefore, by your lights, equally likely to be authentic as any other Shakespearean documents.
"CYA" is not the kind of aberration that could be explained as the result of a momentary brain-lock or a typo. Nor could the rest of that memo be explained that way, unless Killian had some serious mental issues or somebody was playing an ugly prank on him which just happened to survive for a long time when most other such papers were destroyed. There are aberrations and there are - aberrations.
Posted by: Sonetka at September 13, 2004 at 05:19 PMWilber
I guess we've reached plastic turkey status.Yes, the point at which Average Joe's eyes glaze over. Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 05:20 PM
Is that JJJ guy for real?
"The documents are real because I say so...no, I haven't investigated any of the claims but...waaah! waah!"
Posted by: Quentin George at September 13, 2004 at 05:23 PM"The documents are real because I say so...no, I haven't investigated any of the claims but...waaah! waah!"
I think the idea is "I don't know anything about it, but you're stupid and believe want you want/are told to, so you must know even less".
People without critical thinking skills often don't know that such abilities even exist.
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 05:27 PMPig Head Sucker(why am I uncomfortable typing that?) I, speaking as a right-wing-nut,agree that this may have been a Rovian plant, but putting myself in the shoes of a U.S. leftist (of wich I once was) why on earth would I admit to such eager gullibility?
Posted by: Thomas at September 13, 2004 at 05:28 PMMy question is: Why is the media so defiant to defend these to the death? They'd be able to salvage much more credibility if they said, "Hey, we were duped. Sorry."
Posted by: Quentin George at September 13, 2004 at 05:32 PMbut putting myself in the shoes of a U.S. leftist (of wich I once was) why on earth would I admit to such eager gullibility?
Verisimilitude?
But, and I hate to give away trade secrets here, if this had been Rove, the forgery would have been much better. Maybe even head down to the pawn shop and buy a typewriter. The it would look real. But, there would be some other more subtle piece that would nail them just at the right time. A blatant fake detail, confession by the forger, etc.
But this thing would be like the Trojan horse with Greek soldiers riding on the outside.
Posted by: David [.net] at September 13, 2004 at 05:36 PMQuentin George... I think that saying sorry, would be the Network's equivalant of saying, "yes, disconnect the oxygen, my time has come."
Posted by: Thomas at September 13, 2004 at 05:39 PMSorry JJJ, you seemed to have ducked back to the drive-thru for a second, but you are asking how long am I willing to wait for an explanation re: the retired guardsman putting pressure on the alleged author?
You mean, how long can you stall until CBS or the daily kos come up with the agreed excuse?
Posted by: attila at September 13, 2004 at 05:40 PMSome of these kerry followers are like religous fanatics the way they 'see no evil hear no evil' about their Saviour... and big media echoing their beliefs gets them so excited because it overrides their inner doubts...
Religious fanatics have a tendency to get violent when their world collapses though,
That's what's worrying about all this...
Posted by: Om at September 13, 2004 at 05:45 PMIs that JJJ guy for real?
"The documents are real because I say so...no, I haven't investigated any of the claims but...waaah! waah!"
Well JJJ probably thinks that it works for Baghdad Dan so why shouldn't he try saying it as well.
Posted by: Jackson at September 13, 2004 at 05:46 PMWhat’s really strange about the way things are pointing to Bill Burkett is that he was in the National Guard for years, working long hours etc., etc. & you’d think he’d know how to make a memo look official. Did he forget? Has he improved his work? How do the two other memos look?
Posted by: ForNow at September 13, 2004 at 06:04 PMDavid, thank you.
Verisimilitude?
MUST....FIND....DICTIONARY!
Aw shucks, just tell me what it means.
With regards, a lazy American in fly-over country.
Posted by: Thomas at September 13, 2004 at 06:11 PMDictionary found. Verisimilitude = having the appearance of truth.
spot-on
Posted by: Thomas at September 13, 2004 at 06:25 PMThe Appearance of Truth
Heh. The reason people like James Jesse Jones and the rest of the Loony Left (which now seems to include a major US television network) are so convinced of the Truth of these forgeries in spite of the obvious, is that they affirm a deeply held, but unsupported belief that Bush was "AWOL", a "deserter" in 1973, and has "lied" about it ever since. Like Michael Moore's magic movie, it matters nothing that it is a house built on falsehood, so long as it tells a "greater truth."
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 06:39 PMJames Jesse Jones:
LGF looked at whether it could be reproduced in a certain other word processing program, and the answer appeared to be "no".
The ball's in your court.
Posted by: Andjam at September 13, 2004 at 06:52 PMChris, if no one cares about the substance of the documents, why are you having so much fun?
It seems that JJJJJJJJ has had enough of making a fool out of himself for today, but I'd like to answer this.
We're having so much fun because this whole episode proves beyond all doubt that the media cannot be trusted to do its damn job and is in the tank for John Kerry, and people who still believe Dan Rather are hilariously irrational.
JJJ, will you come back to eat crow when CBS admits they're wrong about these? It's only a matter of time, and deep down, I think you know it.
Posted by: Sortelli at September 13, 2004 at 06:55 PMI noticed JJJ disappeared as soon it was pointed out that OpenOffice was not around in 1972. He's probably sitting in a dark room right now, rocking back and forth and yammering on about being a victim of a Bush-Cheney-NeoCon conspiracy.
These people are so bloody stupid it's unbelievable.
Posted by: murph at September 13, 2004 at 06:56 PMIf Dan Rather said the moon was made of cheese, JJJ would be telling us we're all fools for doubting him.
Posted by: Sortelli at September 13, 2004 at 06:58 PMhaha. I love how you cats have me tagged and bagged while I'm down in the cage having a smoke. Anyway, it's been a slice; have a great night all; glad I could be there to help you reinforce your own beliefs. BTW David.net, there is no question about it, your critical thinking skills are vastly superior to mine. I should have never tangled with you, but I've learned my lesson. ;)
Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 07:05 PMWhat was the point of that? You answered none of the questions asked of you and all you have in response is sarcasm? Tagged and bagged.
Posted by: Spiny Norman at September 13, 2004 at 07:20 PMWhat in the world is the argument here? Even JJJ must realize deep down in his large intestines that Rather and CBS know the docs are fake. If Rather's team had believed they were authentic, they would have released them to independent experts to verify their authenticity by now. They'd want to stop the recriminations against their sleaze journalism as fast as possible. If they thought the doc copies were the real deal, they would have been showing and sharing them directly. They would have told us more about the source. Hey, they probably would have put them under glass and into a traveling exhibition to go around the country. Were the papers genuine, "Sugarcoating Bush" the doco display would be already rolling behind the Ben & Jerry's Pants on Fire effigy of Bushitler to sway our sophisticated citizenry for November.
Instead, CBS and Rather are hiding their copies away. They're telling the public to trust them and their one handwriting expert who only authenticated a single signature on one paper and gave no typographical opinion. We are to trust an "expert" who previously had declared that copies of documents should never be authenticated. We are to believe the "expert" who was chosen and paid for by the Clinton people to authenticate Vince Foster's suicide note. We are to accept his "expert" judgement on a signature that he shouldn't have rendered, and then consider it to be unimpeachable evidence that the typed memos are real. We are to trust him without question- CBS has told him not to give interviews. The newspeople are suppressing the press' access to their "expert" and a public vetting of their "evidence". The irony's too rich.
Since CBS knows their docs are phony and can't douse the firestorm they've created with open discovery, they must be hoping it'll die down on its own or be pushed out of the public eye by bigger news. Rather's probably wishing upon a near-earth asteroid, just about now. The weirdest part of this faux National Guard controversy is how the Dems and their CBS shills think they can whip up an election-upsetting furor over whether Lt. Bush missed a physical exam some 30 years ago. That bit of absurdity is supposed to make us want to vote for that other guy whose picture hangs in a Viet Cong Hall of Fame. I'm almost embarrassed for them. They cannot shake my support for W, unless they get proof that he wore white shoes and matching belts in the 80s, because that would be a sin too far.
Posted by: c at September 13, 2004 at 07:49 PMAnd just how do you know the moon isn't made of green cheese, Sortelli? Green cheese has been widely available from grocery stores for many years, so how do you know it wasn't plentiful 6 billion years ago when the moon was formed? If CBS says the moon is made of green cheese, that's good enough for me. Why would they be lying? You rightwingers would believe anything Bushitler says.
Posted by: Clem Snide at September 13, 2004 at 08:00 PMJJJ said: Identical results can be seen using other word processing packages as well.
I can't believe nobody's said this, but the debate isn't about "other word processing packages." It's about the effing typewriters that would've been used by a National Guard unit that was flying dangerously outdated fighters to type such a memo on what would've been state-of-the-art typesetting (not regular typewriter) machines, which the late LTC Killian's son and widow deny he would've typed.
In fact, they have said that he did not type, nor did he keep personal files of this kind. But maybe the photocopies of these files are the real deal.
Maybe.
Posted by: Sean M. at September 13, 2004 at 08:06 PMTo JJJ and other trolls.
You are absolutely correct to fight this memo war. Your integrity has been impugned by the bigots on this site.
Please keep this issue front and center for the next six weeks. After November 3rd we can all hang our heads in shame for not seeing the obvious about which you so piously tried to enlighten us.
And,it keeps us from having to listen to Albore and J Fauntleroy Kerry whine and pitch fits.
Posted by: EddieP at September 13, 2004 at 08:21 PMIt should be pointed out that openoffice.org is a *word compatible* software package, made to closely mimic Microsoft Word. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that it can be used to whip up documents that are, well, pretty darn close to what Microsoft Word can do.
Posted by: gulgnu at September 13, 2004 at 08:23 PMNo, JJJJJ, as a matter of fact that tinfoil hat does not go with your outfit.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 13, 2004 at 08:27 PMThe documents are fakes. You can't get them to line up with Linotype versions of Times New Roman. Or Adobe's version. They certainly don't match with the pre-TrueType versions.
The existence of Times New Roman in 1932 is a colossal red herring. Listen to the computer typography experts. These are ludicrous, childish fakes. There are significant differences between versions of a typeface from different foundries. Try the overlay experiment with Linotype Times Roman (their licensed version of TNR) and it doesn't work.
Monotype handed off its reinterpretation of Times New Roman to Microsoft in time for them to release it in 1992. That is the earliest date at which this 'memo' could plausibly have been constructed.
Don't let a plumber do your brain surgery, and don't let a witless child like Duncan Black kid you that he knows the slightest fucking thing when it comes to desktop publishing.
P J O'Rourke was right.The left has no sense of humour. It is forbidden.
c. "They cannot shake my support for W, unless they get proof that he wore white shoes and matching belts in the 80s, because that would be a sin too far."
Very funny.
I think the most important thing about Rathergate is that it shows us not only is the mainstream media hopelessly biased, not only willing to slant and spin and selectively report and cover up to support its bias, not only willing to fabricate and flat-out lie to support its bias, but that it has the collective intelligence of cabbage.
And anyone who still believes that there's a shred of verisimilitude (great word, that) still clinging to these memos is likewise intellectually cabbagiferous.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at September 13, 2004 at 09:27 PMJJJ, don't mention it!
Next time be prepared when you try to argue with people who know what they are talking about.
The standard for myself on matching the "August 18, 1973" memo is looking at the end of the first paragraph. The first 'n' from 'running', the 'g' from 'regarding', 'g' from 'rating', and 'n' from 'Austin' create nearly a straight line on both the CBS forgary and the memo created in MS Word. OpenOffice with 12 pnt. Times New Roman doesn't create nearly as straight a line. There are also a number of other reference points that don't match up like the perfect matching from MS Word.
OpenOffice doesn't create the exact same document like Word does, nor does any other word processing technology that I've seen. If anyone thinks this is wrong, post the proof.
Posted by: Pass the brown sauce brother at September 13, 2004 at 10:25 PM>I think the most important thing about Rathergate is that it shows us not only is the mainstream media hopelessly biased, not only willing to slant and spin and selectively report and cover up to support its bias, not only willing to fabricate and flat-out lie to support its bias, but that it has the collective intelligence of cabbage.
I agree absolutely.
Anyone can screw up. Anyone can be fooled. But when your reaction to "These documents match the pseudokerning in MS Word" is "Look -- superscripts and proportional fonts!" you really have to wonder about the rest of what they report.
Is the rest of CBS' work really this sloppy?
"Posted by: James Jesse Jones at September 13, 2004 at 04:11 PM
Spiny, apologies for being obtuse. This issue has absolutley nothing to do with Microsoft Word, apart from the fact that it is the most commonly used word processing program. Identical results can be seen using other word processing packages as well."
I just had to give in, and try it with WordPerfect, and surprise, surprise, surprise ... not identical.
Just for the sake of argument, pretend that OpenOffice could produce a document identical to what Word produces. That would mean TWO modern word processors could do what no one has yet shown can be done on any single typewriting implement contemporaneous with the dates of the purported memos.
Posted by: porkopolitan at September 14, 2004 at 12:01 AMBill Gannon's opinion first appears in a comment on Kevin Drum's blog; that comment was linked and requoted by Markos "screw them" Zuniga.
A curious note: Gannon's linked comment contains some very specific and easily checkable opinions. Example: "I can tell you that the Model D can produce those documents . . . I'm guessing a call to IBM with a request for a copy of their font and parts replacement manuals would put this to rest ASAP."
But Ripley didn't do that. She just quoted Gannon.
Posted by: Well-Armed Lamb at September 14, 2004 at 12:12 AMSo what if it can be produced on another word processor on a computer. All irrelevant. They have to produce those memos on a typewriter in use in 1972-73. Looks like anyone who can tap keys can produce this stuff on MS Word but similar productions on 1970's vintage typewriters seem to be as scarce as hens' teeth.
Anyone seen old typewriters being bid up on E-bay?
Hey, I've posted this elsewhere but I'll say it here too:
We should be very, very careful here. We are going much further into speculation and may be creating rumors about a guy who is innocent.
Seriously: we could be creating a new Richard Jewell. This guy may have nothing to do with it, and excessive public speculation on this could really fuck a guy's life up--and create some potential lawsuits for some bloggers.
This may be the biggest danger to Open Source Journalism: public speculation about another person's motives and actions absent proof definitely counts as potentially careless and pernicious gossip, guys.
Don't get mad at me for saying so. Stop and think about it. This man is not a public figure, and he could be completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 14, 2004 at 12:33 AMDean is right. Unless the documents came straight from the hands of John Kerry or one of his operatives, it is of academic interest who created them. We have no evidence; speculation should cease until some appears.
What does matter is that the CBS "journalists" have proved themselves to be either credulous fools or political operatives in their own right. In either case, CBS' claim to be an arbiter of the news is dead. Edward R. Murrow, wherever he is, must be weeping with shame.
Posted by: Brown Line at September 14, 2004 at 01:09 AMI'm sure everybody is trying to do the right thing and that Tim and the others speculating are honorable people. We just need to be fucking careful here.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at September 14, 2004 at 01:38 AMTried it just now on OOo 1.1.1 (OpenOffice). Lines up at the line level in the first par. (all I checked) if TNR 12pt, 8x10.5in paper (mil), 1in margins, 3 spaces after the numbered bullets. 187th doesn't get a special ordinal character, though, at least not automatically (on default settings).
Don't know about the character level. At work, don't have time to check it. If anyone wants me to PDF this doc through the first par. I will e-mail it to you. Cut the nospam from my addy.
Posted by: DrSteve at September 14, 2004 at 01:51 AMThe question of apparently smaller point sizes for the text on some of the documents was raised earlier and it was wondered if the mulitple copying passes could be responsible for this.
The answer is definitely, "Yes". Almost all copy machines do not copy at precisely 1:1, even with no zoom set. Ther are several reasons for this, including the fact that maintaining a precise 1:1 ration is *hard*, and that various governments discourage exact 1:1 copiers becasue they are the only kind that is really very valuable to counterfeiters - any scale changes at all are easily detected even by simple automated bill acceptors.
Almost all copy machines slightly shrink everything (if they enlarged things, successive copies could expand off the page.)
I remember my father's company going to quite a bit of trouble in the mid-1980's to find and acquire a copier that did true 1:1 copying so that copies of mechanical engineering drawings would be accurately sized and could thus be more usefully scaled.
>We should be very, very careful here. We are going much further into speculation and may be creating rumors about a guy who is innocent.
I'd agree if Newsweek hadn't originated the flurry. If his reputation is being sullied, he's got bigger fish to fry than bloggers.
Quentin George:
My question is: Why is the media so defiant to defend these to the death? They'd be able to salvage much more credibility if they said, "Hey, we were duped. Sorry."I'm assuming you really know the answer to this, but let's spell it out.
If they admit they were duped, then they would likely be compelled to 'fess up to who duped them...
Posted by: Don at September 14, 2004 at 02:07 AM24 years active duty and reserve time (3 years bad
time (bad time = less than 56 points in a year))
In case anyone is interested. Any person who would
put a memo in any file that had CYA as a subject
would have an investigation started during the next
IG inspection. CYA was/is always used as a soto
voice description of anothers actions. Seeing a
subject of that nature would be an immediate gig by
the inspecting team.
JJJ's gone now, but it's worth saying, anyway:
Identical results can be seen using other word processing packages as well.
That's not really the kind of evidence that's going to help prove these memos are real.
Reconsider your argument.
Posted by: fxb at September 14, 2004 at 02:31 AMfxb, totally agreed. The burden now is clearly on the folks who want to prove that the Selectric Composer had the combination of required Elements and settings to produce the memo (all the other stylistic/factual/logical issues notwithstanding -- and still operative!). I just wanted to shed whatever light I could on JJJ's contentions, since s/he didn't bother to back it up her/himself.
FWIW, I found an old ebay auction for a SC that suggested that the Elements for the SC would only work on an SC -- so the large number of Elements commonly available for the Selectric doesn't necessarily imply a large number available for the SC.
Posted by: DrSteve at September 14, 2004 at 02:42 AMThe Oxford English dictionary cites the first use of the word 'feedback' in a non-scientific context in 1971, in a rock magazine.
The "memo" was created on Word by someone too young to understand all the intricacies of the old, manual, "art" of typing. They give themselves away by using the term "feedback" in the "sugar coating" memo.
"Feedback" was not in common use in the 70's. Should anyone talk to the widow or son I'd bet they'd say they never heard Killian use the term because he died in the 80s before "feedback" became widely used.
The "memos" are a so phony and so easily debunked that it is simply astounding to believe any adult would accept them as valid given all the circumstances, forensic facts and known contradictions between what Killian said about admiring Bush and what these "memos" suggest are Killian's grave misgivings about the man.
Posted by: jag at September 14, 2004 at 02:42 AMLet's forget the authenticity of the signatures on these documents as they are not relevant. I can add my signature to any document I choose, or your signature for that matter, as long as I don't have to give you the original.
By the way, Dean & David, "fucking" is a verb. I think you guys were looking for an adjective?
Posted by: Just Don at September 14, 2004 at 02:56 AMThere is no evidence the items are genuine. How ever, because there are several methods that could be used to forge them they are genuine.
Posted by: aaron at September 14, 2004 at 03:00 AM13-point vertical spacing and perfect centering of a proportional font.
Both impossible with any typewriter of the time.
Several experts have now said the documents are forgeries.
Case closed.
I think the question is no longer whether the docs are forgeries, but how soon lawsuits will be filed and whether a crime has been committed here. Beyond the obvious civil defamation and libel lawsuit against both CBS and the source, I would imagine there are criminal penalties for forging a U.S. military document, even one as trivial as a memo to self.
Posted by: TallDave at September 14, 2004 at 03:01 AMI'd like to point out that Bill Burkett is quite literally a brain case. Meningoencephalitis can result from different kinds of infection, I don't know what kind he had.
He did claim it was contracted in Panama, but did not fall severely ill until he was out of Panama.
Most adult persons who progress to a nearly-fatal enchephalitis are left with permanent injury. Often they have very noticeable personality changes, problems iwth memory, confusion, etc.
Depending on the type it can relapse, I've heard suggestions that it had relapsed, but haven't found out for sure.
While active the person may develop paranoia, delusions. Burkett once insisted (in 2003) he had and was being retaliated against for personally refusing to destroy George Bush's records, and then some time later admitted that wasn't true.
Posted by: SarahW at September 14, 2004 at 03:03 AMThe fakes look like Microsoft Word, so people make huge commentary on that fact.
But I was on a jury once and found out that the prosecution worked too hard to prove too much. As foreman of the jury I couldn't get the conviction.
The conversation with doubting juriors went like this:
"You believe they proved X, yes?"
"Yes."
"You believe they proved Y, yes?"
"Yes."
"You understand that that means he had to have been driving drunk, right?"
"Yes."
"Then why won't you vote to convict?"
"Because I don't think they proved Z very well!"
(me: "Aaaarghhhh!")
The "completely matches Microsoft Word" argument has two benefits --
1.TO INSTANTLY RAISE SUSPICION (mission accomplished!)
2. And for an expert to include in his final report "Even if theoretically possible, the
chance that someone with a capable machine could have in 1972 chosen ALL the same defaults
as Microsoft Word asymptotically approaches zero."
Otherwise, continuing to argue the exact match with Microsoft Word opens too many possibilities to argue the not-relevant "Z" issues and we'll go round and round forever --
as evidence the inanities of jjj.
So what do I propose? Only use the several unassailable issues and argue no others. Make
them and Rather answer a limited set of issues:
On any machine in 1972 likely to be used for routine military office work, and in this case
used to dash off personal memos not-for-professional-distribution:
1. How could you routinely create, on several personal memos, pixel-perfect centering of headlines in proportional font? Though conceivably possible in the abstract what memo-writer would go through the difficult two-pass hand-calculations needed to do this?
2. The target memos employ a kind of kerning -- in Microsoft Word this would be the inherent
pseudo-kerning, even with "Kerning" in the defaults "OFF".
This kerning-like effect can be seen as the "r" in "from" tucks under the "f" before it. The ONLY possible way this can be achieved is if the machine "knows" that an "f" was typed before the "r". Nothing less than a typesetter would have accomplished this in 1972.
Now, we must not let them argue that there "was some technology" that existed in 1972 that could do this. We must continue to assert "military office" & "machine for routine business" and "typed as a personal memo".
Make them answer this minimal set of questions and don't let them assert the broad range of red herrings that hanging our hat on "looks exactly like Microsoft Word" brings up.
Don't let them say "Z" isn't proved when only "X" or "Y" needs to be shown.
The fascinating (hilarious or frightening depending on how one looks at it -- these people have an equal vote and these can even read in a manner of speaking) thing to me is the thought process. Consider just one of hundreds -- arguing the authenticity of a signature on a PHOTOCOPIED document.
People who seem actually capable of holding a job say this with a straight face and even write it under a byline. Many people read and accept it without questioning.
The expert witness, who is used to being hired to spin a case, attests to the signature being genuine. Hello!!! It should be. It's a PHOTOCOPY. Then, we find the same expert, Marley, had written an article when he said that NO signature can EVER be proven genuine on a photocopy -- one can only prove that it is false. One can prove it is a copy of his signature, but one can never prove he signed it, or saw it for that matter.
Secretary of the Navy Lehman has a genuine facsimile of his signature on Kerry's THIRD version of his medal citation. Lehman says he never signed it. His signature is on lots of things he never signed. They used an autopen.
I just received a memorial certificate for my deceased father with George Bush's signature on it. Did George Bush sign it? Of course not. Could an expert attest that the signature appears genuine? Of course. It is a copy.
This leads me to this: I hope all of these people are completely self-interested, dishonest and unapologetic liars, because when they finally become aware of the threat to their own lives, some of them might be able to contribute to helping defend ourselves. Otherwise Michael Moore is right -- Americans are stupid. Too stupid to govern ourselves, defend ourselves, support ourselves. Give us bread...Give us circuses... Keep us fed and entertained until the barbarians come.
Posted by: Glen at September 14, 2004 at 03:15 AMI hate when the law is misstated. Burkett is not a private person. He is a limited purpose public figure in that he has injected himself into a particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Therefore, under U.S. law, he has invited the attention and comment he receives and must accept certain necessary consequences including the risk false and injurious statements will be made about them.
Posted by: julie at September 14, 2004 at 03:41 AMActually, the apparent fact that the document can only be easily (default settings) be made on Microsoft Word is further statistical evidence of the improbability of its being produced on a proportional-font typewriter.
Some left-bloggers have argued that it's no surprise that an MS Word document in Times New Roman should have exactly the same positioning as a typewritten document in Times New Roman (if such existed in 1972). But in fact, the slight differences in font shape and pseudo-kerning even between computer programs (let alone between any PC and a typewriter), leading to visibly non-matching overlays, proves the falsity of this claim -- not that 2 matching word processor programs today would do all that much to help CBS' case.
Even if a single machine existed in 1972 that could do all the modern features (centering, small-type superscripts, proportional fonts, pseudo-kerning), and even if Killian improbably owned one, and as some odd hobby liked to use the unwieldy typesetter for his personal memos, that are otherwise undistinguished, Killian would also have to, oddly, be complusive enough to on occasion do the proper small-type superscript, but usually instead chose to make the sloppy normal-text "th" -- with the same space in front of it (which would just happen to keep a "th" normal script in MS Word in the future), and Killian would also have to make a number of other typing choices, either because he had ESP about the details of spacing in MS Word 30 years in the future, or as some random fluke, with the odds of this happening being certainly less likely than one in a billion.
If Bush is such an evil liar then:
1. Why were there no WMD reported found in Iraq?
2. Why is George Moore allowed to criticize him?
3. Why were protesters allowed outside the RNC convention?
4. Why are fraudulent memos allowed to be made public?
If Bush = Hitler then:
1. Bush would hate jews
2. George Moore would be dead.
3. The press would be completely pro Bush.
4. Protesters would be dead.
5. All the news from Iraq would be good.
6. There would be no movies or books prodding the public to assasinate the president.
7. Everyone in Hollywood would be pro Bush or dead.
8. There would be no homosexuals and gay marriage would not even be discussed.
9. The US would be a police state, and anti Bush web sites would be shut down.
I'm sure there is more.
No lawsuits because no one will take on CBS. The worry at CBS will be - who gets canned. Rather is too big. CBS should be happy not owned by GE. When NBC took on GM Trucks and it was discovered they had planted an explosive in the truck to embellish a crash on their reporting on gas tank side impact issues, GE quickly fired just about everyone involved in order to avoid having GM own them once the trial ended!! Who owns CBS?
Posted by: JEM at September 14, 2004 at 04:05 AM[The advertisement has been removed. The place to apply for an advertisement on this site is through the BlogAds link on the sidebar. Thank you, The Management.]
Posted by: Pierre at September 14, 2004 at 05:08 AMIf you look at all the various arguments:
-accuracy of font and related Apple patented glyphs
-position of line breaks
-vertical spacing
-superscripting
-proportionality
-kerning
-centering of header
-smart quotes
-anachronistic language ("CYA", "feedback", etc)
-lack of formal letterhead
-content contradicts author's known attitudes re Bush
-author was not a typist
-relatives did not provide memo to CBS
-pressure from a nonexistent superior officer
...to name just a few
The most damning points are these:
1. kerning (or more accurately, "pseudo-kerning) is IMPOSSIBLE without a CPU (or in '73 a professional typesetter) behind the process. See: http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm for the best explanation of this.
2. centering proportional fonts on two separate occasions that precisely match each other is IMPOSSIBLE.
Centering on a fixed width typewriter is difficult enough and would be next to impossible to replicate over time. However, centering a proportional font on a three-line header requires considerable math and TRIAL AND ERROR. Killian evidently was able to do a centered header without mistakes exactly the same way on two different memos typed months apart!
Try this experiment on your own computer using your favorite word processor (AppleWorks, MS Word, OpenOffice.org, even BBedit) and type a centered three line header with a proportional font like Times New Roman WITHOUT USING the auto centering function. This requires you to figure out where to start each line without correcting the placement of the line after you type it. You MUST do it correctly the first time on each line. No cheating!
Now that you have done that I want you to print the results of your work then delete the electronic version. Open a new document and try accurately repeating the process so that it precisely matches the header you just printed (without looking at the printed version for reference). You just failed, admit it. And you tried doing both processes one right after another. Killian did it on a typewriter with months between each effort and he still got them to be identical. The guy must have been a typing sensation!
Cheers,
Dan
1. How could you routinely create, on several personal memos, pixel-perfect centering of headlines in proportional font? Though conceivably possible in the abstract what memo-writer would go through the difficult two-pass hand-calculations needed to do this?
You purchase, at the usual places, a professionally produced letterhead or business card, then photocopy it multiple times and keep the copies in the desk drawer for typing future memoranda.
People do this even today; I've worked in multiple office environments where official correspondence always included the letterhead, but only important letters (progress reports from a department head, client contact, etc.) actually went onto the high-quality paper with the colored, embossed logo. Miscellaneous correspondence went onto an ordinary photocopy of said paper, which didn't preserve the color but since it was a high-contrast logo, that didn't matter.
There are plenty of other evidences working against the memos; I think this one may not be defensible.
Posted by: anony-mouse at September 14, 2004 at 06:22 AMOf all the nonsense that I've seen lately, this is the idea I find funniest:
"I'm sure it's hard for you and your fans to accept that the documents might just be real; but the substance of them will have to be dealt with eventually."
Guess what? I have some documents that prove that Saddam Hussein personally planned the 9/11 attack; that Sen. Kerry found out about this in late 1992; and that Kerry operatives stole those documents so Kerry could accuse Bush of mishandling the War On Terror.
What? You don't believe me? You say the documents are obvious frauds? Well, maybe so, but so what? The substance of my charges will have to dealt with eventually.
SAUDIA ARABIA MUST BE DESTROYED!
anony-mouse points out that the centered headers might be a crude form of letterhead. But if so, there's no way the type of the body copy would be so closely spaced to where we would expect it to be given constant leading. (In other words, in the MS Word moving .gif experiment, either the header or the body copy would be expected to shift up or down a half line or more in one or more of the examples, and even if the typist compulsively aligned the letterhead with the platen, the lines would still be off enough to notice in a comparison to MS Word. I do not believe this is the case with any of the documents, but if I am wrong, that is a highly newsworthy confirmation of anony-mouse' theory.
I LOVE THIS WEBSITE!!! This is the most interesting and extensive collection of comments I've seen on this issue anywhere! Plus, most of the posters seem to have a brain - communication skills - and the ability to cut through the chatter. So glad to have found you all.
Posted by: Cindy at September 14, 2004 at 11:00 AMI followed the link to see the signatures noted in a post by Spiny Norman. On close examination you will see at on all the CBS memos the signature block for Jerry Killian had a period after the Lt (i.e., Lt. Col). None of the other examples have the period.
I'm a retired Air Force officer who was on active duty in the 1970's. I just pulled all my old personnel records that I still have - OER's, orders, etc.. I confirmed periods were not used in any document where abbreviations of rank were in a signature block. That was the way it was done administratively.
Posted by: Jim Hudson at September 14, 2004 at 11:18 AMI followed the link to see the signatures noted in a post by Spiny Norman. On close examination you will see at on all the CBS memos the signature block for Jerry Killian had a period after the Lt (i.e., Lt. Col). None of the other examples have the period.
I'm a retired Air Force officer who was on active duty in the 1970's. I just pulled all my old personall records - OER's and orders. I confirmed periods were not used in any document where abbreviations of rank were in a signature block. That was the way it was done administratively.
Posted by: Jim Hudson at September 14, 2004 at 11:24 AMjwniii:
The machine does not know, in default settings, which letter comes next in the sense about which you’re talking. That would be character-pairing-sensitive automatic proportional spacing. Word’s “Kerning for Fonts” feature is a limited form of that & is OFF by default. Word’s pseudokerning, espcially for fonts like Times New Roman, arises from a combination of individual-character-sensitive automatic proportional spacing & sophisticated software-font design.
The “f” lets any character come close to it. The Times New Roman “f” hangs over snug little letters like “o” & “e”—& bumps right into tall left-side-vertical letters like “b”, “h”, & “k”.
In the memo pdfs, it’s even not clear, under high magnification, & taking fax/pho’py fuzziness into account, that the “f” is really as protuberant as in Word with Times New Roman, although Times New Roman’s character spacing matches the memo pdfs exactly. A very similar font with the same character spacing, the PC (as opposed to MacIntosh) version of Times, seems to me be a better candidate for the font used in the memos. One should look at all instances of the relevant characters & clusters of characters both in the memo pdfs (in order to help oneself weed through fax/pho’py fuzziness), & in Word on screen in 72pt fontsize under 500% magnification. The lower serif of the capital S in the memo pdfs also seems to me to be slanting upward-left, like in the PC version of Times, & unlike the vertical lower serif in Times New Roman.
Posted by: ForNow at September 14, 2004 at 01:53 PM Heres a thought.Why do none of the documents before or or after these four exhibit the characteristics of Word? We are to believe that just these four were produced on a mythical typewriter capable of mimicing word,and then for some unknown reason never used again. It's laughable. Occam's Razor is applicable here.
The irony of Rather's self inflicted wound is that the issue doesn't matter.
Who gives a hoot what George W. Bush or John F. Kerry were doing 30 years ago? President Bush IS the Commander-in-Chief of two of the most spectacularly successful military campaigns of modern history.
Even if his only role was to deliberately stay out of the way of the military types that puts him way ahead in smarts of a laundry list of chief executives whose meddling was the undoing of their own armies.
Posted by: Warthog at September 15, 2004 at 01:24 AMI think JJJ is a Kerry/DNC operative (see the Newsweek article above). Why waste your time?
Kerry is doomed. 30 years ago he was a traitor both to his country and comrades in arms, since then he has been a singularly unexceptional Senator with a far-left voting record. In essence: if he runs on his real record he is unelectable, his only tactic now is to sling mud to keep the attention off of himself. Only he has to hire slimy surrogates to do it for him.
Posted by: Charles at September 15, 2004 at 08:16 AMWhen an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention in NYC returned home to small town Ohio the local newspaper did a feature article on her experience.
She stressed the various levels of security one had to go through to get anywhere, including three checkpoints just to get to the hotel room, let alone the convention floor. She commented on the protesters who attempted to interrupt the proceedings, saying the delegates heard these people managed to clear security with passes provided by members of the media.
If correct, it would seem the media is once again making the news rather (not Dan) than reporting it.
I am curious if such a story has circulated anywhere else?
Posted by: Just Don at September 15, 2004 at 10:25 AM