1

Hah! This forged memo incident is nothing compared to how the media still thinks of Islam as being a religion of peace, and the media's jaundiced view of Christianity:
www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

2

I've been following the story, too, and have some questions.

If these documents are forgeries, then the signature of a field-grade officer has been forged, along with the memoranda. Isn't that a felony? And if so, does CBS or the forger (when he is discovered) have criminal liability? Does CBS have a liability, maybe to GWB himself, should a remedy be pursued?

Either way, it seems to be especially shoddy journalism. The report aired, what, Wednesday night? And by Thursday night it was already so obvious to the nation's leading forensic analysts that CBS has launched an "extensive investigation". Seems to me the "extensive investigation" should have been devoted to the documents themselves. Or, maybe they should have contacted the family of this LTC in question to see if such a memo was in character for him. Or, maybe they should have contacted a military clerk at the time to make sure that the form was properly done. (the date, the ranks, the installation, the "cya" designation, even the form used are all wrong)

Remember your Macchiavelli: If you're trying to kill the king, be sure to kill the king. If you're going after a popular sitting president, should it be too much to have a couple of your ducks in a row? Dumb.

3

Give me a break. These documents were analyzed by document experts and they concluded that they were authntic; CBS stands by its story; and the whole thing is based on the type font, which has been totally debunked. Conspiracy nuts!

4

Here's a link to IBM, which states that they released a typewriter with proportional spacing in 1941.

http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

Here's what it says:

IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters

5

Therefore, BCB, let's hear from those documents experts who attest to their authenticity. CBS should put out their names, so that all the conspiracy nuts who are making all this up can be exposed for what they are. BTW, it's not based on the type font, but on the typeface itself. Sure--fonts like that existed in the early 1970's, but they were used exclusively by news organizations. You know, the big printing presses? Which weren't terribly common in National Guard offices for use by military E-2 clerks. Even the ones in Texas, where "everything's bigger".
Still, you know best.

6

Believe me, BCB, you're not going to want to go on record on this one. Beat up on Bush's drinking problems, or his alleged drug use, or his TANG connections, or his deficit spending. We've heard it all before, and it's familiar ground for you.

Best to sit back, and let the weekend pass before you guys on the left pick a pony in this race. We'll know everything by next Tuesday.

7

See "Forged Documents: Topic Two", which is several articles down the page at:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

It seems that overlaying the CBS memos with a print-out of the same text typed into MS Word yields a perfect match. Since they supplied the MS Word .DOC file for download, and since I copied the images of the CBS memos, I did the same experiment. It is indeed a perfect match. One memo supposedly generated by a circa 1972 typewritter, whose spacing, kerning, line breaks, etc. matching exactly the output of a circa 2004 word processor. What are the odds of that happening? Could someone explain the probabilities associated with that supposed event? The only way it makes any sense at all is that the CBS memos were generated on a circa 2004 copy of MS Word. Any takers?

8

Watching the lefties squirm, sputter and self-immolate warms my heart. You got served! What's up now?? I can throw this in your face until the end of time and you guys can't say jack. Punks step up to get beat down.

9

I can understand your point, but I myself am having a hard time believe that CBS could have been so badly fooled, if that is in fact the case.

10

Hey Armando,

Little Green Footballs, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, and One Hand Clappong have all the proof you need. Why do you find it so hard to believe an orgnization like CBS that wants so badly to hurt Bush is incapable of being fooled by something that so nicely fits into their preconceptions? It's well documented that the media lacks an understanding of how the military operates. That they were so easily fooled by memos that do not conform to standards of military writing seems about right.

11

Why were they willing to listen to the whispered lies and murmured rumors?

One thing that should lead you to suspect that a "previously unseen" document is a fake is that it says exactly what you would have expected it to say -- that is, it exactly confirms your prejudices and completes your mental story without any surprises.

What would the truth have looked like if there had been real Killian memos that contained damaging news from the past for Bush?

First, the news probably would have been mixed: there probably would have been some good news included. We already know that Killian thought Bush was a fine pilot. If real, these memos would have probably included some praise of Bush that would have been unexpected and unwelcome to the minds at CBS.

Second, the bad news probably would have been slightly different than expected. It might have been that Bush missed duty because he, say, got a girl pregnant and had to take her for an illegal abortion.

Think of a jigsaw puzzle that's half-complete, and you're looking for the piece that fits a certain location. You have a mental image of what the piece looks like, but you're always at least a little surprised. That's what the truth is like. When CBS saw these memos that confirmed all their prejudices and pushed all their buttons, they should have known this new piece was too perfect to fit.

12

I think this one will have some longer staying power because of the press pimping for Kerry -- after the election, even the Dems are going to be mad that the press failed to smoke out Kerry's Lies before the silly reporting for duty DNC.

Also, comparisons with the Swifties, and news treatments of each story, will show more bias.

13

Yeah thed swifties pretty much got a complete pass by the media for a good month. The media has already pounced on the potentially forged memos, wihle ignoring the other problems with Bush's NG record. The mistake the dems made was trotting out documentation. They shoudl have taken the swiftie approach and just gotten people to supposedly remember stuff that they might have heard that someone had seen thirty years ago. You can't document that, and when a mountain of contrarian documents come up (like the swifties claims) they just have to shout "conspiracy!" and the media will be little lap dogs again.

I hate Bush and I'm glad that the dems are fighting back, albeit about a month late. Unfortunately in my non-expert opinion, those letters look like bad forgeries. Time will tell. Hopefully in that time Lord Bush and Darth Cheney are booted out.

14

Mr. "Moderate", above, points to what will be the real scandal in this issue: that the papers were given to 60 Minutes by the Kerry campaign. It was reported in the Spectator last week that they turned over the Killian documents to 60 Minutes "journalists".

Gotta say this about Kerry: for him, bad news sure comes all at once, doesn't it? Too bad Morton Salt has already trademarked the most appropriate jingle for the DNC. Every time Kerry opens his mouth about his past or GWB's past, it completely blows up in his face. This election is about the future, and how will you, a president, deal with the greatest foreign policy crisis (Islamic terrorism) of our age? Kerry has no answer. Even the Russians are seeing the light, and Kerry won't answer any questions. The only person in the world with a plan on the table is the guy in the White House, and all the DNC wants to talk about is Bush's National Guard service in Texas, or Kerry's four months in Vietnam. I can't imagine anything more irrelevant today.

15

Go to the IBM link. It says that a typewriter can replicate the type face of a printing press. This could have been found out in two seconds with google. Type face/font...whatever. Just look at the link. Also, atrios has a sample of the type that these things can produce. And it's from the 40's.

You are all a bunch of nutjobs.

16

Also from atrios:

The IBM Electric typewriters were a series of electric typewriters that IBM manufactured, starting in the late 1940s. They used the conventional moving carriage and hammer mechanism. Each model came in both Standard and Executive versions; the Executive differed in having a multiple escapement mechanism and four widths for letters, producing a near typeset quality result.

One model of the series was introduced in the late 1940s:
IBM Model A Two models of the series were introduced in the 1950s:
IBM Model B
IBM Model C One model of the series was introduced in the early 1970s:
IBM Model D Modified Standard versions of the A, B, and C models were commonly used as "console typewriters" or terminals on many early computers (e.g., JOHNNIAC, IBM 1620, PDP-1). Following the introduction of the IBM Selectric typewriter in 1961, which was much easier to interface to a computer, these typewriters were rarely used anymore as "console typewriters" or terminals.

Notice the reference to near typeset quality results.
No wonder you all think God exists. You'll buy just about anything, no matter how silly.

Nutjobs!

17

>Why do you find it so hard to believe an
>orgnization like CBS that wants so badly to
>hurt Bush is incapable of being fooled by
>something that so nicely fits into their
>preconceptions?

Just like Piltdown Man (according to Gould). Piltdown fit the current theory of "brain primacy" (by having a modern cranium and an ape's jaw fragments, with the telltale joint between the two missing). Piltdown's apparent age pre-dated that of other proto-human fossils in other areas of the world, proving that Europeans (i.e. white men) had evolved first, fitting the current "law of nature" of white supremacy. (Piltdown was actually called "The Earliest Englishman".)

When you provide someone with phony evidence that fits what they want to believe (and want to see/hear), you can get pretty sloppy and still get them to fall for it.

18

BCB - Tell us nutjobs about how the IBM typewriters created the "th superscript."

19

To quote Charles Johnson:

"Anyone who ever used an IBM Selectric or a manual typewriter knows that when you reached the end of a typed line, you had to manually cause a 'carriage return.' On electric typewriters you could push a button, but on manual machines you had to grab that lever and shove that carriage back to the left margin.

There was no such thing as automatic word-wrap.

So what are the odds that in these documents, supposedly typed by hand in 1972 and 1973, the line breaks would match exactly with a document typed into Microsoft Word, using Word’s default margins?

Answer: approaching absolute zero."

So now we have a document that produces "near typeset results"--a highly advanced technology for its time that just happens to perfectly align itself with the default values of a word processing program that wouldn't be invented until years later.

And let's not even consider the fact that prior documents from the memo's alleged author show a markedly different image of the future President.

Or that the author's son claims the writing is different from that of his father.

Or that the writing is vastly different from the format and style you would expect a military officer to produce.

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?

But don't you worry, BCB. I'm sure you're right, and this is simply a coincidence of miraculous proportions. After seeing all of the evidence one must reject to believe these documents are authentic, we don't doubt your opinion about God one bit either.

20

BCB,

IBM Electric typewriters...

It's worthwhile considering whether typewriters could account for all the oddities in these "previously unseen" Killian memos. And, in fact, yesterday blogs such as LittleGreenFootballs did just that.

The verdict (one shared by typography experts both Democrat and Republican) is that no typewriter of that period can account for a host of features including but not limited to kerning of characters, the superscripted "th", and the curved right single quote marks.

Kerning, in case you're no font expert (and there was no reason, before yesterday, that you should be), is the way word processors make characters overlap the empty space in adjacent characters. So, for example, if a word starts "fo", the "o" will be moved slightly into the empty space under the arch on the right side of the "f". Typewriters can't kern, because they don't know that you have typed an "o" after an "f".

The purported Killian memos have kerned text. Therefore, they couldn't have been produced with a typewriter in 1972.

I think the fallback position you should be moving to is to say that the Kerry campaign gave these documents to CBS News in good faith, assuming that CBS would validate their authenticity before using them. That would at least get the Kerry campaign off the hook.

21

This wingnuttery is not worth a response.

22

The more salient question here is why the Left think this is such a "gotcha!" issue. I honestly don't care if Bush was a poor pilot in his youth, or not even a very good soldier. What I care about is who I trust to lead us in the war on terror.

Where was the Left, where was Tom Harkin, where was Al Gore, where was John Kerry for that matter when Clinton, who never served day one in the uniform, was running for President? The double standard is so obvious, so infuriating and yet ignored by the press. Every inch of Bush's military record, even the false records, are gone over with a fine toothed comb but Kerry's record is off limits?

Kerry is the one who has tried to make this campaign about what happened 30 years ago. Bush is the one campaigning on what happened 3 years ago and how to prevent it from happening again. This stuff about Bush's National Guard service is garbage, desperation from a Kerry camp that is learning the same lesson the GOP learned in 1996: you don't get elected President by default. You have to stand for something. Bob Dole figured it was his turn and the revulsion people felt for Clinton would lead him to the White House. He was wrong and so is Kerry.

John Kerry is going to be the Democrat's Bob Dole.

23

"Kerry is the one who has tried to make this campaign about what happened 30 years ago."

Bogus.

24

"Bush is the one campaigning on what happened 3 years ago and how to prevent it from happening again."

Yeah, since he did such a great job preventing it the first time around. "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US? I guess I'll take a vacation."

25

I noticed a few moments ago that the return address for one of the memos is Box #34567.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

Could this forgery be any more obvious?

26

Good one, Jim.

27

Box 34567

That could be an important point, Jim. My first reaction is that there are lots of P.O. boxes that really are 34567, and I would expect the forgers to get the P.O. box right if they were going to type it on the document -- how sloppy are they? Don't answer that. Is there a way to find out what the P.O. box really was? Do some unforged documents available on PDF have letterhead with the real address? There is so much proof already, this wouldn't even be like icing on the cake -- it would be like a little crumb that fell off the cake. Still, it would be nice to know.

28

The arguments of the wingnuts are eerily similar to creationist arguments.

"OH MY GOD! NO TYPEWRITER COULD POSSIBLY HAVE WRITTEN THAT IN 1972!!!!" Sound familiar? Unfortunately, as the creationists arguments go, so go the arguments of the little green freepers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

We'll just ignore for the moment the fact that the White House has no dispute re the authenticity of these documents. But I do appreciate the freepers keeping this story hot and maybe even pissing CBS off.

I notice after 2 months, CBS has finally started to debunk Bush's claim that re Kerry's "flip flop" on the 87 billion in funding for Iraq (you remember, the funding bill that Bush himself threatened to veto if it didn't include an un-earmarked 20 billion). This is a good thing because as Bush's credibility sinks into the mud (joining Condi's and Cheney's and Rummy's) so will his chances for re-election.

29

Ed Jordan

"there are lots of P.O. boxes that really are 34567"

No way. Really? C'mon, joker, you must be kidding me.

30

BCB-"You are all a bunch of nutjobs."
BCB- "Nutjobs!"
Larry Lord- "This wingnuttery is not worth a response."
Larry Lord- "Bogus."

Your "arguments" are less than eloquent and don't seem to be very convincing. I wonder why?

31

Jim Miller,

It looks like other people agree with you about the suspicious P.O. box.

The Kerry Spot just posted this:

ABOUT THE P.O. BOX... [09/10 02:15 PM]

The "P.O. Box 34567" in one of the memos always seemed kind of weird. Not disproven, just kind of weird.

Now James Rosen of Fox News is reporting that the Pentagon questions the use of a P.O. Box on a memo, and that the P.O. Box may never have been used by that unit. He reports that it seems highly unlikely that they would have P.O. Box containing sequential numbers, and that standard military practice has always been to place the actual physical address on the letterhead.

32

"Your "arguments" are less than eloquent and don't seem to be very convincing. I wonder why?"

It's not our arguments that need to be convincing, Dave S. It's the freepers arguments. Thus far, the best I've seen is "I can create a memo that looks a lot like these memos using Microsoft Word."

Gee, that's really impressive.

Add to that the constantly evolving arguments about what typewriters were capable of doing in 1972 and you have a huge pile of stinking freeper doodoo. And that's it.

Again, the similarities to creationist arguments are noteworthy insofar as creationists, like the freepers, pretend that it's all about convincing THEM.

Face it: it wouldn't matter to these freepers if Bushie himself came out and said, "It's all true. The documents are real." THey'd still claim they were forged and that Bush was just "sayin' that stuff" because of some plan that Rove cooked up.

As I said, the controversy only keeps the issue of Bush's poor performance in the Guard and, more importantly, his subsequent LIES about that performace, on the table.

So keep it up, by all means.

33

"The "P.O. Box 34567" in one of the memos always seemed kind of weird. Not disproven, just kind of weird."

It's kind of weird that the White House doesn't dispute the authenticity of the documents, too. Curious, that.

34

Hey freepers, try doing a Google search for "PO Box 12345" and see what happens. It'll really blow your tiny little minds away.

35

Larry Lord,

Unfortunately, as the creationists arguments go, so go the arguments of the little green freepers.

That's an interesting proposition, Larry. Are you sure you are willing to admit that evolution is false if you find out that these "recently discovered" Killian documents are forged?

36

"That's an interesting proposition, Larry. Are you sure you are willing to admit that evolution is false if you find out that these "recently discovered" Killian documents are forged?"

Heh. Let's not get greedy, Ed. ;)

37

I was suggesting that you refrain from name calling, Larry. Perhaps you cannot.

38

"James Rosen of Fox News is reporting that the Pentagon questions the use of a P.O. Box on a memo, and that the P.O. Box may never have been used by that unit."

Perhaps Fox News might like to investigate what "the Pentagon" (who?) claimed before spouting off. Oh, but I forget, no one takes them for a serious news organization anymore anyway. Any bets on whether the PO Box was actually used by that unit? Or how often the Pentagon actually put PO Boxes on memoranda thirty years ago? Anyone?

39

Didn't someone murder you yet Larry? Jerk. Oh that's a real email adress I'm using.

40

"Didn't someone murder you yet Larry? Jerk."

Oh, gee, sounds like I got under somebody's skin for daring to allege that publicly claiming incredulousness over a PO Box with a consecutive string of numbers was a sign of naivety.

Whatever.

41

Not for that, just because I hate you as a person.

42

No one takes Fox seriously anymore? What happened - did they do a story based on obviously forged docuemnts?

43

"Not for that, just because I hate you as a person."

Oh, well, in that case: flame away!

44

" What happened - did they do a story based on obviously forged docuemnts?"

Yeah, it was called "War on Iraq."

45

This is a Christian site. Anyone who disagrees with Larry is supposed to love him, not hate him.

46

Larry, BCB - first of all, in typical left-wing fashion, in the TOTAL ABSENCE OF FACTS, what do you do? You call people names. Are you guys both 11, or are you actually adults? As if "Neener-Neener-Ding-Dong, you're a nutjob!!" is going to convince ANY THINKING ADULT that you're right, especially in light of the OVER-FREAKIN'-WHELMING pile of facts to the contrary!! Try making an argument based on some sort of facts.

47

I think that one of Larry's objectives in visiting here is to get people to respond to his flame bait in an un-Christian manner. I think that he may do this because he feels that this will in some way prove that Christianity is invalid. I admit that he sure gets under my skin. I think it's all right to call him each other on our behavior and we are obligated to do so for fellow Christians. But maybe we should keep this theory in mind and say a prayer for him rather than denounce him.

48

"This is a Christian site. Anyone who disagrees with Larry is supposed to love him, not hate him."

I didn't read Ed's post. I mean, "I agree with Ed."

49

We now know that "Larry Lord" is really Joe Wilson.

50

If nothing else, this thread goes to the heart of another topic posted about a week ago re: post-election blogging.

It was bloggers who exposed this story. The internet will become only more prominent, and the major media less so, as all information is put up for public display and scrutiny.

As hard as it is to feel sorry for Dan Rather, I honestly do. He is living in a bubble. As bad as this weekend is going to be for him and CBS, this is just the beginning of what will be a wrenching transformation of the way news is reported, analyzed, disseminated, and critiqued.

And it's all good. Very, very good.

51

I have to reverse my previous opinion. I had no idea that typewriters of the 60's and 70's had the ability to do proportional fonts, superscripts and justification. Here is a screenshot from a SelectComposer manual producing output that would be indistinguishable from a modern data wordprocessor/laser printer combination:

http://www.ibmcomposer.org/SelComposer/justification.htm

52

Lord is also skeptical about telephone numbers that spell out words. You know, like a law firm's 1-800-LAW-SUIT number.

53

Emma,

Absence of facts? What are you talking about? Read my posts. The White House has not questioned the authenticity of the documents. Every argument I've heard from these forgery folks is either founded on a falsehood or has no support. In the time it took this thread to evolve, the issue of the documents genuineness has vanished EXCEPT for those who will NEVER believe in their genuineness because they are too committed to believing (for whatever reason) that George W. Bush was a stellar National Guardsman.

Please. Let's be serious, okay? Did you do the Google search, Emma? What did you see? Do you understand the meaning of what you see? Please prove that you understand the meaning of what you find on that search result page. Otherwise, based on your post above, I will assume that you don't know the difference between a baseless accusation and a fact.

Dave wrote

"I think that one of Larry's objectives in visiting here is to get people to respond to his flame bait in an un-Christian manner."

Negatory. Flames are boring.

54

Oh, but I forget, no one takes them for a serious news organization anymore anyway

Sure about that, Larry?

If you don't believe me, look for yourself:
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/ratings/cable_programs.html

Or, are the Neilson Group just a bunch on right-wingers, too?

NOTE: 8 OF THE TOP 10 MOST WATCHED CABLE PROGRAMS BELOW ARE FROM FOXNEWS...

For week of 8/30/04-9/5/04

Rank*
Program Network
Total U.S.
Household Rating**
Total Viewers***

1 You Dec 04-Bush(S)-09/02/04 FOXNC 4.3 7,340,000
2 You Decide 2004 (S)-09/02/04 FOXNC 4.0 6,595,000
3 You Dec 04-Cheney(S)-09/01/04 FOXNC 3.8 6,182,000
4 You Dec 04-Bush Daughters(S)-08/31/04 FOXNC 3.7 5,445,000
5 You Dec 04-Zell Miller(S)-09/01/04 FOXNC 3.6 5,520,000
6 You Dec 04-L.Bush(S)-08/31/04 FOXNC 3.5 5,216,000
7 You Dec 04-Schwarzenegger(S) -08/31/04 FOXNC 3.4 5,124,000
8 You Decide 2004 (S)-09/02/04 FOXNC 3.3 5,511,000
8 Law & Order TNT 3.3 4,451,000
10 Law & Order TNT 3.1 4,314,000
10 You Dec 04-Pataki(S)-09/02/04 FOXNC 3.1 4,947,000
* Rank is based on U.S. Household Rating % from Nielsen Media Research's National People Meter Sample
** A household Rating is the estimate of the size of a television audience relative to the total universe, expressed as a percentage. As of September 1, 2003, there are an estimated 108.4 million television households in the U.S. A single national household ratings point represents 1%, or 1,084,000 households.
*** Total viewers includes all persons over the age of two.
(S) Special
Updated every Wednesday

© Nielsen Media Research, Inc. The Information contained herein is the copyrighted property of Nielsen Media Research, Inc. Unauthorized use of this copyrighted material is expressly prohibited. All Rights Reserved.

55

"As hard as it is to feel sorry for Dan Rather, I honestly do. He is living in a bubble."

Let it not be said that Kevin W can tell it like it is! Of course Rather is living in a bubble. It's a million dollar a year bubble, I imagine. It's not unlike the bubble that Tim Russert and Chris Matthews live in. Woe be unto us all.

"As bad as this weekend is going to be for him and CBS, this is just the beginning of what will be a wrenching transformation of the way news is reported, analyzed, disseminated, and critiqued."

We'll see. I would not be suprised if the mainstream media will continue to treat George Bush and the Swift Boat Liars with kid gloves until the election is over. But I would be happily surprised if someone on national TV approached the remarkable claims of the Swift Boat Liars with anything resembling the way they are analyzing the frankly unsurprising allegations implicit in these memos. It's OLD NEWS on the Internet that Bush was a flake in the guard and that he can't account for his whereabouts for large chunks of time.

56

Emma, I'm sorry, I meant "no one who cares about the truth" goes to Fox News to find it. I thought that was obvious. I don't doubt that people who like flashy logos and newscasters with strangely geometric heads watch the programs religiously.

57

What search shall I do, Larry? The magic "which typewriter prepared these forged documents" search? C'mon, Larry. Just because you think that a typewriter *could* have produced a particular font TOTALLY ignores the rest of the evidence. So and IBM typewriter could create a simlar font. I say, so what? What about the two OBVIOUS misses of Air Force Regulations? An AFR is totally different from an AFI, and, as was pointed out, and AFI would never be used to order a pilot to have a physical (and don't even try to argue this one with me, Larry. This happens to be an area that I have a great deal of knowledge about, and I can tell you right now that no matter what you argue, you're wrong - there is NO WAY that a Lt. Col. in the ANG is going to mistake a AFI for an AFR - especially not twice in the same memo, and ESPECIALLY ONE AFI THAT DOES NOT EXIST).

Beyond that, they've also shown that the signatures on the documents don't match those of official Air Force documents. What, now the Col. forgot how to sign his own name?

I could go on and on, but, it's simply a waste of time. Larry, you've obviously drank the libral cool-aid, and you're off in la-la land somewhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to convince someone who is obviously oblivious.

58

See: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/shot-heard-round-world-echoes-of-big.html

You expect me to believe that a Lt. Col. is going to make such a mistake?

The two memos refer to a flight physical and a flight review board, both IAW ("in accordance with") AFM 35-13. But that would stand for "Air Force Manual" 35-13, and manuals are guidelines only. They have no regulatory authority. No one takes a physical exam, flight or not, IAW a manual. ...

So I went there and discovered, sure enough, that there was an Air Force Regulation 35-13, but no AF Manual 35-13 is listed. AFR 35-13 was superceded in 1990 by AFI36-2605 (Air Force Instruction, i.e., the same as a regulation). So I Googled AFI36-2605 and voilá! Here it is. This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive 36-26, Military Force Management, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 7280.3, Special Pay for Foreign Language Proficiency. It prescribes all procedures for administering the Air Force Military Personnel Testing System and Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) program. Which is to say, this publication has nothing to do with flight physicals.

From all this I conclude that the Killian-signed documents are forgeries, forged by someone without a very good knowledge of military correspondence or Air Force publications or procedures. Based on the Air Force's own online library of current and obsolete publications, I conclude that there never was an Air Force Manual 35-13, although there was an AF Regulation by that number. But a lieutenant colonel would never have made such a fundamental error as using "AFM" twice when he meant AFR.

59

Or, how about this.. is this bull, too?

(see: http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid874)

Farrell Shiver is the owner of Shiver & Nelson, a document investigation lab in Woodstock, Georgia. Here are his qualifications:

Certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners
Member and Treasurer of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
Member of the Questioned Documents Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Member of the Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners
Former Chief Document Examiner - U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory
Editor, Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
Graduate of, and former chief instructor for the U.S. Army's two-year resident training program in Forensic Document Examination
Court qualified expert, including U.S. Federal District Court
Experienced in criminal cases and civil cases
Author of numerous papers and articles on the subject of Forensic Document Examination
Retired Special Agent of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command

I interviewed Shiver on air two hours ago, and here's the transcript of that exchange:

HH: Farrell Shiver, welcome to the program.

FS: Thank you for asking, Hugh.

HH: Have you had a chance to take a look at these documents?

FS: Just briefly, this afternoon.

HH: Do they raise any questions in your mind?

FS: Yes they do.

HH: Can you tell me what kind of questions they raise?

FS: Well, I looked over some of the websites that have been discussing this, and I downloaded the pdf files showing the memos from the internet. One of the things that people have been discussing is the proportional spacing of the documents, and just to give your listeners an idea of what I am talking about, when I am talking about proportional spacing, if you were to type on a your computer just a row of the letter w, and then underneath that a row of the letter i, and you were to change that font that you used on your computer between the courrier type font and the Times New Roman type font you would see in the courrier type font that the letters would wind up in nice little neat vertical rows, and that is typically how a typewriter would prepare a document, in these nice little neat vertical rows, unless it was a proportional spacing typewriter. In the Times New Roman, you will see that they do not line up in neat rows. Each letter is given just enough space for that letter, so the lower case letter i would not need as much space as a w, which is a wider letter. Now, all the memos that are in question, are what we would call proportional spacing, how a book is typed, if you buy a book off the shelf, how they are type-set. And in some of these web sites they have talked about how proportional spacing would not have been available in 1972, that it only became available with the advent of computers and word processing, and that's not really true. Proportional space typewriters originated as early as the late 1930s, and were introduced commercially in 1944. So proportional space typewriters have been around for quite a while, so just the fact that these memos are done proportionally spaced is not enough to say that they are not genuine.

However there are some other features that are in the documents such as the "th" combination behind the 11th in the 4 May 1972 document.

HH: That's referred to as a subscript font feature, I gather?

FS: Well, superscript. Superscript.

HH: Superscript.

FS: When it is above. And the 18 August 1973 memo, behind the 187th. This type of feature is not something you would expect to find on the typewriter. It is something that is more characteristic of a computer preparing this, which is something that you would not expect Colonel Killian back in 1972, 1973 to be using.

HH: Does that cause you to question whether these documents were actually prepared in 1973 and 1972?

FS: It certainly causes me some concern and would cause me to question whether these documents were actually prepared at that time.

HH: Other, later-breaking from this afternoon allegations: The font does not appear to match any available at that time. Does that jibe with your understand of fonts available in 1972, 1973?

FS: Well I haven't had the opportunity to do an exhaustive analysis of that. Certainly Times New Roman has been around as a font for quite a long time, but whether that was available on a typewriter in 1972, 1973 is a totally different question. It was certainly available for printers and typesetting for books and newspapers and things of that nature. But I have not had an opportunity to do an exhaustive analysis. In addition, the quality of these documents, coming from a PDF file, is not such where you can really do the type of minute analysis that needs to be done.

HH: How long would a very careful analysis have taken CBS to examine these?

FS: Well for documents like this, I would spend at least a couple of days working on documents like this.

HH: Another question that has been raised is the idea that some of the apostrophes in these documents are curved, and people are asking did typewriters at the time have the ability to make curved apostrophes.

FS: Well that is an interesting question. In the sources that I looked at, none of the sources I looked at had curved apostrophes. I cannot rule out at this point that there were none available at that point. That would be part of just the type font examination. Did the type font that was used for this also have curved apostrophes? Certainly that is something that is available in the computers that are used today. As a matter of fact, as I typed on my computer using Times Roman, it has the curved apostrophe, and if you were going to do an exhaustive analysis of this, that is something that you would have to look at.

HH: Over at National Review, Jim Geraghty, the reporter who writes KerrySpot has asked if it is a mere coincidence that typing the same words into Microsoft Word results in spacing and line breaks, if left in Word's default, that are identical to those in the CBS document. How would you answer his question?

FS: I haven't really addressed that question, and I would have to have some time to think about that.

HH: All told, Mr. Shiver, you have been doing this a long time, and you are very careful, that's why I appreciate your taking the time with us. We did not discuss this before you came on air. You could have come on air and said "I believe in these documents completely," and that would have been fine by me. If you had to bet, at this point, if these are authentic or not authentic, which way would you be betting?

FS: (Laughing) As a document examiner, I don't like to bet on documents. Mr. Hewitt, but I would certainly say that if I had to give an opinion right now, the opinion would not go towards it being genuine. I certainly have strong questions about this "th" combination that is being used in the superscript, that we discussed earlier.

In one of the websites I noticed that one of my colleagues had been cited, Dr. Philip Bouffard, and he has indicted that he is about 90% certain that the documents are not genuine. He had had the opportunity to do a more exhaustive analysis of this than I have.

HH: Is he credible?

FS: He is a very credible individual. As a matter of fact, the program that is used by document examiners, throughout the country, in classifying documents, was developed by Dr. Bouffard.

HH: If CBS brought you these documents, what would you do?

FS: The first thing I would do is compare the documents to one another, I'd want to see what the common elements or the elements that were not in common between the documents. But I really don't want to bore your listeners with a lot of technical details as to what's going here, in a document examination. Just let me say that there are some elements of the document that certainly raise some red flags, and some suspicions, and we talked about the "th" and we talked about the apostrophe being there as some of these suspicious elements. And if it was determined that a typewriter was not available that could have a "th" combination like this, which I really don't believe there was, or a curved apostrophe, which so far I haven't found one in the references that I have looked at, then that would indicate that the document could not have been prepared at the time it was supposed to have been prepared.

HH: In other words, that they ought not to have been relied upon for any news judgment? Would that have been your advice to CBS?

FS: Yes sir, I would agree with that statement. I am also concerned that CBS has not identified the expert that has authenticated these documents. I am wondering why they are not willing to do that. That seems unusual. There are an awful lot of unqualified people that claim to be document examiners, and I am wondering if there ,might not be a source of embarrassment if they were to identify who it was that authenticated these documents for them.

HH: I see. Some other people have identified problems with the signature and the initialing. I haven't had a chance. I have got them in my hands and I am certainly not an expert. Did anything jump out at you on those issues?

FS: I have not really addressed those issues, and was brought up on one of the web sites that has been discussing this, it would be quite easy for some one using computer manipulation to take a genuine signature and manipulate it on to the document if they had those available from other records.

HH: Are you surprised--assume for a moment that this is a forgery-- are you surprised at the superscript "th"? That just seems so easy to have deduced as fraudulent.

FS: Well, again, there's an awful lot of people that advertise themselves as being document examiners that really don't have the qualifications to do this and I am very surprised that someone authenticate this as a genuine document with that "th" being in that position. if someone was able to show that that was available at that time that would counteract that argument.

HH: Of course the "th" doesn't appear in each of the documents, but does its appearance in a series of documents, at least two f them, suggest that the other two --part of the series that are produced at the same time-- suffer from the same frailty?

FS: Well, if the documents are all supposed to be from the same source, certainly if two of the documents can be shown to not be genuine, that might cast doubt on the other documents that were associated with it.

HH: I think you have answered my questions completely, Mr. Shiver. I really appreciate it. As this story develops, I may try and impose on your time again, I know it is late back in Woodstock Georgia, and I appreciate your taking the the time to look at this this afternoon and to inform our audience across the United States of your opinion. Anything else you want to state, we have about a minute until the break?

FS: Not really, do you have any other questions for me?

HH: Nope. You have answered mine, which is, I am going to take it to the bank that these are not good docs.

60

It's gotta be frustrating for the Left that this story has gotten no traction, whereas the Swift Boat Ads have gone a long way in destroying Kerry's campaign for the presidency.

Of course, it is old news that Bush got a deferment to serve in the TANG. It is also old news that he didn't go to Vietnam. Also that he was a heavy drinker. And that he might not have gone to the National Guard drills as often as most Guardsmen do. What did the Clinton years tell us? "Nothing new here--move on. What is he doing lately?"

Fair enough. So why belabor the point with forged documents? If GWB's commanding officer thought he was a scumbag (an assertion that clearly has been repudiated by Killian's widow and son--unless they're also lying just to hurt Kerry), doesn't that merely go to prove the point?--In the early 70's, Bush didn't take his service seriously.

But what IS newsworthy is that 270 of Kerry's "brothers in arms" hate the guy's guts. They say he doctored up medical reports. Exaggerated activity reports to justify medals he didn't earn. Stuck a "V" on his Silver Star, even though nobody in the history of the United States has ever earned a Silver Star with a V for valor. Came home and admitted to war crimes that he either did or did not commit. Met with enemies of the United States while still a reserve officer of the American Armed Forces. Then, running on his Vietnam War record, and thereby inviting all this scrutiny.

Let's hear from the candidate. What are his specific plans for dealing with terrorism? What are his specific plans for Iraq? What are his specific plans for domestic spending? For taxes? Instead of doctoring up GWB's fitness reports (apparently Kerry has had some practice at this), let's hear about your vision is for America in thirty years' time, not campaigning on 30 years ago.

61

"This type of feature is not something you would expect to find on the typewriter. It is something that is more characteristic of a computer preparing this, which is something that you would not expect Colonel Killian back in 1972, 1973 to be using."

This is bogus. Read the link I posted above, Emma. And do the Google search, too. And tell me what that Google search shows, Emma. Thanks.

Fyi, I employ forensics experts. They are tools, literally, and not very intelligent ones.

Once again: the White House has not disputed the authenticity of these docs and, in fact, implicitly acknowledged their genuineness when Bartlett attempted to "explain" the bad facts away.

62

One wonders if CBS has its 527 papers in order?

Not to mention CNN and MSNBC, who have on-screen personalities who are also working on the Kerry campaign.

63

"Of course, it is old news that Bush got a deferment to serve in the TANG. It is also old news that he didn't go to Vietnam. Also that he was a heavy drinker."

You forgot coke snorter and maid impregnator.

"But what IS newsworthy is that 270 of Kerry's "brothers in arms" hate the guy's guts."

Yeah, Kevin, and why do you suppose that is? Oh, never mind, we know why that is. And we know that they are liars.

"What are his specific plans for dealing with terrorism? What are his specific plans for Iraq? What are his specific plans for domestic spending? For taxes?"

I think you can find a bit of information on his web page.

64

Once again: the White House has not disputed the authenticity of these docs and, in fact, implicitly acknowledged their genuineness when Bartlett attempted to "explain" the bad facts away.

Who cares? Maybe they want to let CBS et. al. fall on their own sword? Maybe this fits best into their plan? I don't know, but, that's totally inconclusive, and really quite a pointless and gutless argument.

Is that the best you have? "...the White House has not disputed the authenticity of these docs." That's it? Wow. I'm overwhelmed.

65

For nearly a month, the Kerry campaign didn't dispute the authenticity of the Swift Boat Veterans' claims either.

That must make them true.

Before now, I was ambivalent about the release of Kerry's records. Now, I'd really like to see them. Be interesting if his medal citations and his fitness reports were generated using Times New Roman, font size 10, from Microsoft Word using Win 98 SE.

66

Emma, you sound overwhelmed so I'm not surprised to hear you admit it. Did you do the Google search I recommended? What does it tell you?

67

Bottom line, Larry, these documents are obviously a forgery, to anyone but a fool. Everyone in the world, apparently, except for you and BCB understand and agree with this.

If I were you, I'd go to the site below, and have a look for yourself. Ask yourself, truthfully, if these letters look like something that was created on a run-of-the-mill circa 1972 typewriter, or, something that looks like it was created with MS Word.

If you're doing this with intellectualy honesty, then, the only conclusion you can come to is that they are forgeries. Otherwise, you're committing sophistry, not only on everyone here, but, on yourself as well.

68

"For nearly a month, the Kerry campaign didn't dispute the authenticity of the Swift Boat Veterans' claims either. That must make them true."

Nice try, Kevin. Did the Kerry campaign assume the truth of the Swift Boat allegations and attempt to explain them away?

Nope.

Go figure.

69

Larry,

Here's the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

70

"run-of-the-mill circa 1972 typewriter"

Oh, I missed the line in the memos where it says "this memo produced on a run of mill circa 1972 typewriter."

Fact is, Emma, MS Word doesn't produce documents that have the inconsistencies that are apparent in the memos. And even if it could produce such a document, what the heck does that prove? Only that computers are powerful tools. Wow. Impressive.

Did you do the Google search? What are you afraid of Emma?

71

Did you do the Google search I recommended? What does it tell you?

Uh, you never reccommended a search to me?

Did you answer the evidence I gave you?

And, no, I'm quite underwhelmed, thank you.

72

I'm afraid of nothing, Larry. How about you?

73

Oh, I missed the line in the memos where it says "this memo produced on a run of mill circa 1972 typewriter."

74

I've heard many folks testify on the fact that the AF used IBM Selectric typewriters in the early 70's, not some high-end, near typeset quality one.

Do you feel the moutain of evidence yet, Larry? Where's your evidence?

75

I suppose that next, you'll tell me that Al Gore actually won Florida in 2000?

Fantasy, Larry. Pure, unadulerated fantasy.

76

This is getting tiresome.

For me, it's simple. If the documents aren't forged, then ABC news, NBC, and a whole lot of editorialists are going to have some re-writing to do in the next few days. And, for all that, CBS sure is acting like it's got something to worry about.

Just like on the campaign trail. Kerry is in deep trouble, and he knows it. His people know it. You don't shake up a successful football team's coaching staff--you do that to one that is flailing, hoping to salvage the season. The Kerry people are looking into the abyss and, finding no bottom, have turned to the Clinton people for help, adding even more chiefs.

Newsflash for the Left: America DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BUSH'S NATIONAL GUARD SERVICE. AMERICA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT KERRY'S TIME IN VIETNAM!!!! Only the lunatic Left believes that we need to spend MORE time showing that no, all the Swift Boat guys are liars--John Kerry is a hero. Or that, gee-look what an empty uniform Bush was.

I'm not complaining too loudly, though. Kerry has managed to turn an 8-point lead into a double-digit trail by running the most inept campaign in recent times. I'd love nothing more than seven more weeks of the same. And, I'll bet I get it.

77

"I've heard many folks testify on the fact that the AF used IBM Selectric typewriters in the early 70's, not some high-end, near typeset quality one."

Wow, you just convinced me. Who could argue with that?

78

OK - your evidence, then? Lay it out. Convince me.

79

" Only the lunatic Left believes that we need to spend MORE time showing that no, all the Swift Boat guys are liars"

Um, Kevin W, it's the so-called "liberal media" that was obsessed with the Swift Boat story -- you know, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. And they didn't do a very good job of exposing the liars, unfortunately. BUt they did a very good of giving them air-time. Funny how that works. Well, "funny" isn't the right word, actually. It's only our democracy at stake, after all.

When George Bush starts talking about something else besides 9/11 and terrorism, maybe the media will start reporting on something else. But why would George Bush want to talk about his record as a President of this country? It stinks.

80

So, where is it? How about that Google search I asked for?

What about the evidence I've given you? The mistaken regulation, the mistaken non-existant AFM? The obviously forged signature?

81

Yo, Emma -- evidence of what exactly? You want a film of Killian typing the memos thirty years ago? You'll just say it was digitally edited. Spare me.

82

So, you cannot rebut my evidence? Spare ME.

83

So, you're admitting that you're little more that a blow-hard? Full of hot air, and completely lacking in substance? Should I apply this to all of your arguments, Larry?

84

Emma, I've heard from many folks that all your evidence is bogus. Rebut that. Or at least try to understand the point I'm making about your so-called "evidence."

Good luck ...

85

Evidence, Larry, that we should trust this document. Why should we? Literally dozens of document experts, dozens of military experts, most major news organizations, and the majority of the blogosphere, including most of the (non-looney) left agree that these are forgeries.

What evidence do you have to counter-balance them?

THAT'S what evidence.

86

"most major news organizations ... agree that these are forgeries."

List these orgs, please, and include cites if you have them. Else I might be inclined to believe you that you are making stuff up.

87

I've heard from many folks that all your evidence is bogus.

So, you're going to result in some sort of ad hominem evidence "Well, I've heard people say it's true, so, it must be."

I've presented ACTUAL EVIDENCE. You've given me "some people say it's bogus" - how can you even compare the two?

You're so freakin' ridiculous, it's not even funny. What kind of an argument is that? "My friends think so, so, it must be true."

Yeah. WOW.

88

Gee, this is getting surreal.

Emma, how come it's okay for you to rely on "folks who say stuff" but not me? Seems kind of unfair.

89

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-bush10.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/9623049.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131997,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955784/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/politics/campaign/10guard.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/politics/campaign/10guard.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-guard10sep10,1,5866113.story?coll=la-bottom-elect2004

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28276.htm

Do you need more?

90

how come it's okay for you to rely on "folks who say stuff

I was actually refering to radio interviews, and I also gave you specific facts. Not just "well, people say it" - that's the difference.

Tick-tock, Larry. Still waiting.

91

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

Okay. So we have Emma the Liar saying that "most major news organizations ... agree that these are forgeries."

And then she cites a list of websites.

I pick one of the websites, listed above.

The website does not show what Emma claims.

Need I bother looking at the rest?

I think not.

Emma = liar.

Thou shalt not lie, Emma. Shame on you.

92

Still, throughout the afternoon and evening, questions arose about the authenticity of the memos as various forensics experts told news organizations, including The New York Times, that the fonts of the documents resembled those of modern-day word processors, specifically Microsoft Word.

Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist from Ohio who created a commonly used database of at least 3,000 old type fonts, said he had suspicions as well. "I found nothing like this in any of my typewriter specimens," said Dr. Bouffard, a Democrat. He also said the fonts were "certainly consistent with what I see in Times Roman," the commonly used Microsoft Word font.

Or how about this:

CBS News executives also produced a document released earlier by the White House about Mr. Bush's service that was clearly from a typewriter and had a superscript "th'' in it. CBS said it proved that some typewriters did indeed have superscript keys. But the characters were hard to make out after so much reproducing of the document, a problem, the CBS News official acknowledged, with the documents in the initial "60 Minutes'' program; those documents were not originals and have been copied repeatedly.

93

What are you talking about, Larry? What, specifically, in that article counters what I'm saying?

94

How about this, FROM THAT FREAKING ARTICLE:

"Questions are also being raised about the memos by document experts, who say they appear to have been written on a computer, not a typewriter."

"The memos are dated 1972 and 1973, when computers with word-processing software were not available.

More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity. "

WHAT OF THAT IS LIES, EXACTLY, LARRY?

You're the most DISHONEST person I have ever had the displeasure of knowing.

How dare you call me a liar.

95

Here's more:

""These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e., the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers. "

96

ABC news does not agree that the documents are forgeries, Emma. Neither does NBC. Neither does the New York Times. Neither does CBS. Etc., etc.

You lied. I'm done with you here.

97

Larry, news organizations are not going to come out and say that they agree or disagree with an expert's testimony. The implication is that if they're willing to print it, then, they must be able to back it up, lest they be considered slanderers.

Care to try again?

98

Or, have you not read "All the President's Men" - after all, that's how Woodward and Bernstein were able to sink Nixon.

Those two reporters never came out and said "Nixon is lying" - they did it through stories created around quotes from experts, the same as you're seeing in those articles.

99

So, all, I guess that Larry has decided that the argument is too hot, and he's chosen to run away. So, bye Larry. Thanks for playing. Return now to your looney friends, and I hope that you can drink enough of that kool-aid to deafen the voices of reason in your sad, lonely, mind.

100

I've got an analysis of more typographic concerns on my blog. The typeface has changed since the 1980s.

http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299

101

After reading more on blogs, I believe I was mistaken to claim there is kerning in either the pdf version of the memos or in the reproductions that people make using Microsoft Word.

It takes an extra step to turn on kerning in MS Word.

Typing the documents in MS Word with the default settings produces matches in character spacing, line spacing, and word wrapping.

102

A lot of us will never believe the documents in question are real; a lot of Kerry / CBS supporters will never admit the docs are fake. Not much point in continuing the discussion. The next question is, if they are fake (and most people seem to agree they are), who did them? I predict they will be traced to DNC operatives in Texas. The Kerry campaign will say they had nothing to do with it. The established media, willing to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for Abu Gharib, will give the Kerry campaign, and the higher circles of the DNC, a pass.
and remember; "The best BS is CBS" (quote from Frank J of IMAO.US)

103

Neil,

Excellent article!

A real contribution to the blogosphere's analysis.

104

The next question is, if they are fake (and most people seem to agree they are), who did them? I predict they will be traced to DNC operatives in Texas. The Kerry campaign will say they had nothing to do with it.

If the Kerry campaign passed on the documents to CBS, my wife feels there is nothing wrong with this, and no blame should be attached to Kerry. That's because Kerry was relying on the CBS News organization to verify the authenticity of the documents, which was not the Kerry campaign's expertise. This is assuming that the Kerry campaign did not produce the documents or know that they were forgeries.

I can see that point of view, but I think the reality would be that the Kerry campaign would be blamed by most people in that situation.

105

I've heard that the 'Kerry Campaign' passed the docs to CBS, but where did THEY get them? Is there a black market in 70s-era military memos? Did the campaign receive them anonomously, by mail? Maybe they found them at a swap meet or flea market? SOMEBODY had to find or obtain (or make)the documents in question. This should be the next issue to be addressed.

106

I just read the transcript of the CBS news segment tonight, where Rather defended the documents with a series of half-truths. He said that the Times New Roman font had been around since the 1930's, but didn't mention that they weren't on typewriters. He didn't mention that Barnes' daughter said her dad was lying, and told her that he would; he didn't mention that Killian's family believe the story and the memo is made up; and the documents "expert" they used was a handwriting expert brought in to validate the signature.
No mention of kerning, no mention of the misspelled ranks and numerous format errors, no critics or proponents of another theory were allowed to speak. Is that "balanced"?--to not even bring on somebody who can defend why the documents are forgeries.
The other networks are going after CBS. This is going to be a disaster for Rather by the time it's done.
Serves him right. Lying bastard.

107

"a lot of Kerry / CBS supporters will never admit the docs are fake."

Give them time, they'll be pointing out how they noticed it in the first place.

108

I'm pretty sure ABC now thinks the docs are forgeries:

"HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud". "

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html

109

Oh yes ...

God Bless the 9-11 dead.

110

You fools have moved the ball like three times in this thread alone. First, it was the font. When it was proved that that technology exisited a way long time ago, it became the typeface. When it was shown that that came out in the 40's, it became the "kerning". But that's not default, and "kerning", if it was actually being used in the documents, would cause it to look different than it actually does.

What can we draw from all of this: you all are a bunch of tards

111

Frankly, I'm pissed that your votes count the same as mine. For every vote you guys get, I should get at least four.

112

We don't rely on facts:
http://www.ibmcomposer.org

The first IBM Composer was the IBM "Selectric" Composer announced in 1966. It was a hybrid "Selectric" typewriter that was modified to have proportional spaced fonts. It is 100% mechanical and has no digital electronics. Since it has no memory, the user was required to type everything twice. While typing the text the first time, the machine would measure the length of the line and count the number of spaces. When the user finished typing a line of text, they would record special measurements into the right margin of the paper. Once the entire column of text was typed and measured, it would then be retyped, however before typing each line, the operator would set the special justification dial (on the right side) to the proper settings, then type the line. The machine would automatically insert the appropriate amount of space between words so that all of the text would be justified.

This is like the 16th time I've had to do this.

113

Just discovered your Blog. Outstanding!

JimF

114

Well, gee, BCB. It's just that when the guy who designed the font used in the memo says they weren't available on any but the most expensive equipment in the world at that time, we tend to believe him unless we see evidence to the contrary.

And maybe all these other news organizations are bunches of "tards", too, whatever those are. Do you mean turds?

Anyway, funny point you made about you getting four votes to each one of ours. If you live in Chicago, Milwaukee, Dallas, New Orleans, or in any one of several other Democratic-controlled jurisdictions, you already do.

Here's my advice to you BCB, since you're too smart for this blog: call up ABC News, Fox, and the now dozens of editorial writers across the country who are running this story and show them how stupid they are--that the TANG clerk who typed these memos had a piece of equipment that cost thousands of dollars. That, further, after making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy . . . . . . . . that there would obviously be some deterioration, etc., and that the format and style of memo are completely wrong, etc.

Still, you're the clever one here.

115

I'll tell you what I'll do for you:

I'm willing to accept the authenticity of these memos, as they are. In fact, they tell us nothing new about GWB's National Guard Service that we haven't heard ad nauseum from the Left before. He was a playboy who used a deferment to get out of Vietnam then never showed up to the drills and amassed a sorry record of fitness reports along the way.

In return, I want you to acknowledge that the Swift Boat Veterans are also telling the truth. Kerry lied about his medals, lied about his record, smeared his comrades in arms for political gain, doctored his own fitness reports, and along the way was able to pick up 270 signatures from the men who knew him best who say the guy can't be trusted with a high command.

116

and while he was commanding george was high.

117

Petty, Petty, Petty, Petty.

Do you all see what a big deal we are making out of nothing? This is the whole of the Dem tactic, they have nothing, so they keep digging up and throwing out nothing. Who cares about what a typewriter could do with typeset during the early '70's with regard to a person's guard service when it has already been attacked and given up on more than 4 years ago to begin with?

Does the whole of media and citizenry not get that economy means nothing in a terror war? That medical insurance means nothing in the midst of a terror war? That nothing suercedes the war on terror in importance at this time in history? What good is a strong economy when random acts of terror occur across this country? You keep your economy, I'll take the fight.

Can anyone tell me just one thing J(F)K has said in the last year? Aside from taxing us all into poverty so he can throw more money at ineffective and castrated social programs, I can't find one instance of his laying anything out on the table. Must have some "super-secret" plans that he can't tell us about lest we actually have something of use- he'll just take his toys and go home when he loses.

Typewriters, typset, 30 yr old docs, redundant chatter about an old war that has no bearing whatsoever on this point in time....no wonder we can't get anything done. I think it's time to call the left what they truly are: drumroll please....here come the death threats and venom....call me Mr. Controversy.......antichrists. They are acting exactly like the antichrists of the world (not THE Antichrist). Prove me wrong.

Thank you and good night.

118

Hey Larry - Since I know that you're still reading this, I thought I'd add to the moutain of evidence...

The Dallas Morning News this morning is reporting that the officer that the memo's were written to had retired 18 months before the memos were written. The have the actual discharge papers in hand.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/091104dnpolguard.117c8.html
Here's the relevant paragraph:

AUSTIN – The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Col. Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Mr. Bush's service was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

I guess that Col. Killian just wanted to let the former officer know that one of his men was not doing what he was suppose to? How are you kool-aid drinkers going to explain this one away? Hmmmm?

119

A couple of comments: those who hate Bush have such closed minds they will believe absolutely anything that seems to show him in a bad light. You are wasting your breath trying to show them the evidence that these documents are fogeries. They don't care.

Second, it dawned on me the other day exactly why the Dems are running Kerry. They have long considered Iraq to be another Vietnam. So they had to find an anti-Vietnam war candidate. Kerry has long tried to have it both ways--he served and then opposed the war. It's his time spent as an anti-war protestor that they value. What they do not realize is that most Americans don't give a damn about any of this Vietnam stuff. They didn't care that Clinton dodged the draft. They don't care about the controversies about Bush's guard service. And they aren't too interested in what Kerry did over there. Recent polls show that Kerry's support among the 18-28 group has dropped by 28% in the last weeks. Clearly they don't like his behavior.

And when is Kerry going to get around to releasing HIS military records? I'd like to see him held up to the same kind of scrutiny.

120

Teri:
Good question. Kerry's group will release his records as soon as they're done running them through MS Word, and triple-checking to make sure that everyone who has signed his documents is deceased.

121

Here's even more from Media Matters for America...tards:

EXHIBIT A: Superscript was available

Many news outlets and conservative publications have falsely reported that the documents' "use of the superscripted letters 'th' in phrases such as 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" raise suspicion because 1970s-era typewriters were incapable of producing such letters. In fact, journalist and weblogger Joshua Micah Marshall has pointed out that superscripted letters appear on other documents in Bush's military file that are known to be authentic. Moreover, IBM released a typewriter in the 1960s, the Selectric II, which was capable of producing superscript type.

And:

EXHIBIT B: Proportional spacing was available

Another widely reported claim against the authenticity of the 60 Minutes documents is that their use of so-called proportional spacing -- a typesetting method in which varying letters occupy varying widths on the line, such as an "i" occupying less space than a "w." Press accounts have cited many so-called "experts" claiming that typewriters with this feature was rare and would not have been in wide use in the Guard in the 1970s. But in fact, typewriters with proportional spacing had been available since 1941, when IBM introduced the first model. Typewriter advertisements from 1953 and 1954 suggest the feature was wi