New Bush Guard documents forged...?

[Todd33]

And further strengthens the claims and credibiltiy of the brave vets letting the truth be known about Kerry and exposing moveon.lie for what its really worth.

Ya.. WTF are you on? Does it also prove WMDs and a lQaeda-Saddam links too? Wow, aliens are among us.

These memos had very little content, they are not smoking guns. The forgery was such a sloppy job, it took one day and some net geeks to figure it out, who knows what side planted them?

 

[dahunan]

If they were planted by Rove then at least both sides know Bush is consistent at failing

 

[XMan]

Harvey, it's quite obvious in looking at the PDF's of the documents that they were produced by a word processing program and not a typewriter. On a side note, if they are copies-of-copies-of-copies as has been purported in the media, the image would have been much more lossy than it currently is, especially on early 70's era xerographic technology.

You usually have extremely valid points but in this case I think you've picked the wrong fight.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ajf3

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.
.
.
The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.
.
.
The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

I love "experts." The documents are from 1972 - 1973. Allow me to introduce you to the IBM Selectric II Typewriter from 1971.

The ability to change fonts, combined with the neat regular appearance of the typed page, was revolutionary and marked the beginning of desktop publishing. Later models with selective pitch and built-in correcting tape carried the trend even further. Any typist could produce a polished manuscript.
.
.
The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line (for inserting such symbols as subscripts and superscripts), whereas the Selectric I did not.

The original Selectric came out in 1961. If the military had an ongoing purchase contract with IBM, they would probably be among the first wide scale users of the Selectric II.

Originally posted by: Chadder007
PWN3D!!!!

Not even rented... Not even borrowed... At least not yet. We'll see.

These documents were not done with any model selectric as they only used monospaced type faces. The selective pitch allowed the user to switch between pico and elite typefaces. Both of these were mono spaced.

You are correct that it is possible to do super and subscript with a selectric, but would require an addition print head or to manually make the super and subscript. Manually doing this requires you to use the same size lowercase letter for the super and subscript. These documents have shrunk super/subscript letters.

This document was not done with a selectric.

HOwever, there was an ibm executive that could to proportional fonts, how it did not have what appears to be the times new roman in these documents. So that one appears to be out as well.

ANd there is the IBM composer. If it had the right font, it could likely make this document. However you would probably only find this in a printshop and not on desk. These required a bit of training to be able to use.

 

[sandorski]

The White House passing these on is moot to the documents authenticity. They have a good track record of passing on forged documents as authentic!

 

[classy]

Well I looked at the documents. And I 'll add this. The little th everyone is talking about was available on some typewriters quite a ways back. What I used to do for a living for almost 10 years was work in printing various types of documents. Documents as far back as the late 1800's. And I know for a fact that I've seen many documents for that time period that had the little th. And if I am not mistaken New Times Roman I believe is the font that mostly imitated old type writers. I ain't sure of the validity of them though. But obviously the content must be legit. Because if it wasn't the White House would denied the validity of the documents.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: classy
Well I looked at the documents. And I 'll add this. The little th everyone is talking about was available on some typewriters quite a ways back. What I used to do for a living for almost 10 years was work in printing various types of documents. Documents as far back as the late 1800's. And I know for a fact that I've seen many documents for that time period that had the little th. And if I am not mistaken New Times Roman I believe is the font that mostly imitated old type writers. I ain't sure of the validity of them though. But obviously the content must be legit. Because if it wasn't the White House would denied the validity of the documents.

linkage

Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number ?4.? In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a ?closed top,? which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. Other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

It appears you are mistaken.

 

[arsbanned]

This could all go away if Mr. Bush would simply tell the truth.

 

[fornax]

As far as I can tell (the PDFs are of rather poor quality), some characters are NOT the same between Word and the documents: the 3,7,8 are most obvious, and the lls and g's are also different. Though I won't be surprised if these are indeed forgeries (has happened so many times before). It won't be unlike Carl Rove to slip some fake memos to CBS I heard the guy once bugged his own office

 

[DealMonkey]

I love how all of these amateur typography "experts" have suddenly come out of the woodwork. Keep it up, it's hilarious.

:laugh:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: classy
Well I looked at the documents. And I 'll add this. The little th everyone is talking about was available on some typewriters quite a ways back. What I used to do for a living for almost 10 years was work in printing various types of documents. Documents as far back as the late 1800's. And I know for a fact that I've seen many documents for that time period that had the little th. And if I am not mistaken New Times Roman I believe is the font that mostly imitated old type writers. I ain't sure of the validity of them though. But obviously the content must be legit. Because if it wasn't the White House would denied the validity of the documents.

There is the possibility that the Bush system is providing time/rope to have the story hang themselves.

As part of the article indicates, the fancy IBMs cast much more $$ and unless an existing system died would not be justified. Also, replacemets always are done by the trickle down.

Records should be able to be dug up at IBM to determine if such typewriters wree ordered by the GSA and where they were shipped to.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
This could all go away if Mr. Bush would simply tell the truth.

A politician - NEVER

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

And further strengthens the claims and credibiltiy of the brave vets letting the truth be known about Kerry and exposing moveon.lie for what its really worth.

I fail to see how one thing relates to the other, but thanks for trolling, er, I mean playing.

Liberal trolling equals differing opinion. That is their "open mind."

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: classy
Well I looked at the documents. And I 'll add this. The little th everyone is talking about was available on some typewriters quite a ways back. What I used to do for a living for almost 10 years was work in printing various types of documents. Documents as far back as the late 1800's. And I know for a fact that I've seen many documents for that time period that had the little th. And if I am not mistaken New Times Roman I believe is the font that mostly imitated old type writers. I ain't sure of the validity of them though. But obviously the content must be legit. Because if it wasn't the White House would denied the validity of the documents.

linkage

Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number ?4.? In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a ?closed top,? which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. Other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

It appears you are mistaken.

Well obviously my years of experienece is equal to this expert. If you've never heard of a site called History for sale its a great site. No question of the authenticity of these documents. Both are typed. One is from 1954 which you can clearly see resembles New Times Roman font. The other a typed document from 1972 that used cursive writing, look at the address at the bottom.

Document 1954

Document 1972

Now if look at the 4 while it is from cursive writing style the 4 is identical. Closed top and have the little lip off the back. And that is from a document from 1972. The little th is questionable, but I am pretty certain I can recall seeing documents with this from that time frame as well. Now I am not saying they are legit. I am merely pointing out that the things being used to argue that they are fake simply is not true. I am no expert, but have seen more documents from different eras than almost 95% of the folks in America, cause it was my job. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

[ajf3]

Wonder what the post DNC offical apology bump will be?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: classy
Well I looked at the documents. And I 'll add this. The little th everyone is talking about was available on some typewriters quite a ways back. What I used to do for a living for almost 10 years was work in printing various types of documents. Documents as far back as the late 1800's. And I know for a fact that I've seen many documents for that time period that had the little th. And if I am not mistaken New Times Roman I believe is the font that mostly imitated old type writers. I ain't sure of the validity of them though. But obviously the content must be legit. Because if it wasn't the White House would denied the validity of the documents.

linkage

Next, Dr. Bouffard began entering individual characters in an attempt to match them to the remaining fonts that were available on proportional spacing typewriters of that era, focusing on numbers. Thus far, one character stood out, the number ?4.? In the document provided by CBS News, the number 4 does not "have a foot" and has a ?closed top,? which is indicative of Times New Roman, a font exclusive to more modern computer word processing programs. Other characters matched the old proportional spacing fonts (available on only a small few typewriters of the era), but this number did not (please note that this is only an initial analysis with numerical characters).

It appears you are mistaken.

Well obviously my years of experienece is equal to this expert. If you've never heard of a site called History for sale its a great site. No question of the authenticity of these documents. Both are typed. One is from 1954 which you can clearly see resembles New Times Roman font. The other a typed document from 1972 that used cursive writing, look at the address at the bottom.

Document 1954

Document 1972

Now if look at the 4 while it is from cursive writing style the 4 is identical. Closed top and have the little lip off the back. And that is from a document from 1972. The little th is questionable, but I am pretty certain I can recall seeing documents with this from that time frame as well. Now I am not saying they are legit. I am merely pointing out that the things being used to argue that they are fake simply is not true. I am no expert, but have seen more documents from different eras than almost 95% of the folks in America, cause it was my job. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Given that you think a mono spaced font resembles a proportional font, I can see why you are no longer doing print work.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ajf3
Wonder what the post DNC offical apology bump will be?

They aren't the ones who released these docs - it was CBS News.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: charrison


Given that you think a mono spaced font resembles a proportional font, I can see why you are no longer doing print work.

Thats irrelevant. In the days of typewriters there were many different print heads and impact ribbon types. And I doubt anyone could quite possibly know everyone or type available. The question is, was it possible that a print head or impact printer be available that could produce that type of font. As you you see it was definately possible. And as someone of above pointed out typewriters were available that could produce superscript. And why didn't President Bush deny the validity of the documents if they and the contents conatined there in are fake?

 

[ajf3]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ajf3
Wonder what the post DNC offical apology bump will be?

They aren't the ones who released these docs - it was CBS News.

Yeah - but they jumped on the wagon balls out. Press conferences explicitly to call the sitting president of the United States a liar.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: classy

Thats irrelevant. In the days of typewriters there were many different print heads and impact ribbon types. And I doubt anyone could quite possibly know everyone or type available. The question is, was it possible that a print head or impact printer be available that could produce that type of font. As you you see it was definately possible. And as someone of above pointed out typewriters were available that could produce superscript. And why didn't President Bush deny the validity of the documents if they and the contents conatined there in are fake?

They may not have known to do so. Honestly I'd like these documents to be genuine, but I think the lion's share of the evidence is that they're not.

In addition to the typeface issues, which are numerous, a poster here provided the following points, which I tend to agree with (though I have some caveats, which I have added in italics):

I'm not a big conspiracy buff, but in addition to what others noted (those dot patterns, for example: I never saw so many on any copy, from that era or any other; and shouldn't the May '72 patterns match?), a few other things struck me as odd:

1) the military usually abbreviates dates. "01 August 1972" would be rendered 01AUG72. - This one I'm not so sold on, as the date is frequently written both ways in the military

2) Same memo: who is "Harris"? No rank given. Odd in an official document.

3) 19 May 1972 header: "Bush, 1st LT Bush"? Sounds normal in a movie script -- "Bond, James Bond" -- but odd on a military memo. It would be "Bush, 1LT" or "1LT Bush". - presumably a typo

4) same doc: "memo to file"? What file? Not MilParlance. - I'd expect it to be entitled a Memo For Record

5) Ref to pt. 3, Killian would more commonly have put his rank (in abbreviated "LTC" form) on the same line as his typewritten signature line. Equally odd is the absence of his identification of his position, e.g. "CDR, 111th F.I.S., TexANG" or something like that.

6) 01AUG72 memo, lines 1 and 2: verbal orders? Suspending someone from duty? Not done. Especially over the phone (point 2)? And how does point 2 ("I conveyed...request for orders of suspension") square with point 1 ("I ordered [Bush] be suspended from flight status")?

7) Does anyone else with military experience find it odd that the 04MAY72 "memo" would say, verbatim, "not later than (NLT)"? I never had anyone explain "NLT" to me. Hell, they rarely explained anything to me...

8) Post office box as sending address for a military unit? And P.O.B. "34567"? Why not "CDEFG"? An amazing coincidence? A lazy forger? An inside joke? Does anybody know the address of the 111th? - Apparently this was in fact the correct PO Box

9) As noted (item 8) in PowerLine Blog ( http://www.powerlineblog.com/
) , "the signatures on the CBS documents do not appear to be authentic. Check out the two signatures below. The one on the left is an actual signature of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The one on the right is from one of the CBS documents. It's not even close; in fact, it doesn't even look like the person who signed it made any attempt to copy Killian's signature." - No idea on this one

10) Looking at the same signatures, note that Killian seemed to have a perfectly normal, non-proportional space typewriter for Bush's discharge. Not the same typewriter? Hmmm.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison


Given that you think a mono spaced font resembles a proportional font, I can see why you are no longer doing print work.

Thats irrelevant. In the days of typewriters there were many different print heads and impact ribbon types. And I doubt anyone could quite possibly know everyone or type available. The question is, was it possible that a print head or impact printer be available that could produce that type of font. As you you see it was definately possible. And as someone of above pointed out typewriters were available that could produce superscript. And why didn't President Bush deny the validity of the documents if they and the contents conatined there in are fake?

Yes there were typewritters that were capable, but they were not common either. But according to some experts looking at the document now, there do appear to be problems with them. Granted you still would need to address the signature issues, date format issue and incorrect terms used for a physical(they are called medicals)


What could Bush say about these new documents as he had never seen them.

 

[Gravity]

More irrelevant attention spent on something that happened decades ago. Why are we wasting our time with this or Kerry's quesitonable medals?

 

[charrison]

linkage

more problems

News reports have said the memos, first obtained by CBS's "60 Minutes II," were found in Jerry Killian's personal records. Gary Killian said his father wasn't in the habit of bringing his work home with him, and that the documents didn't come from the family.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: classy

Thats irrelevant. In the days of typewriters there were many different print heads and impact ribbon types. And I doubt anyone could quite possibly know everyone or type available. The question is, was it possible that a print head or impact printer be available that could produce that type of font. As you you see it was definately possible. And as someone of above pointed out typewriters were available that could produce superscript. And why didn't President Bush deny the validity of the documents if they and the contents conatined there in are fake?

They may not have known to do so. Honestly I'd like these documents to be genuine, but I think the lion's share of the evidence is that they're not.

In addition to the typeface issues, which are numerous, a poster here provided the following points, which I tend to agree with (though I have some caveats, which I have added in italics):

I'm not a big conspiracy buff, but in addition to what others noted (those dot patterns, for example: I never saw so many on any copy, from that era or any other; and shouldn't the May '72 patterns match?), a few other things struck me as odd:

1) the military usually abbreviates dates. "01 August 1972" would be rendered 01AUG72. - This one I'm not so sold on, as the date is frequently written both ways in the military

2) Same memo: who is "Harris"? No rank given. Odd in an official document.

3) 19 May 1972 header: "Bush, 1st LT Bush"? Sounds normal in a movie script -- "Bond, James Bond" -- but odd on a military memo. It would be "Bush, 1LT" or "1LT Bush". - presumably a typo

4) same doc: "memo to file"? What file? Not MilParlance. - I'd expect it to be entitled a Memo For Record

5) Ref to pt. 3, Killian would more commonly have put his rank (in abbreviated "LTC" form) on the same line as his typewritten signature line. Equally odd is the absence of his identification of his position, e.g. "CDR, 111th F.I.S., TexANG" or something like that.

6) 01AUG72 memo, lines 1 and 2: verbal orders? Suspending someone from duty? Not done. Especially over the phone (point 2)? And how does point 2 ("I conveyed...request for orders of suspension") square with point 1 ("I ordered [Bush] be suspended from flight status")?

7) Does anyone else with military experience find it odd that the 04MAY72 "memo" would say, verbatim, "not later than (NLT)"? I never had anyone explain "NLT" to me. Hell, they rarely explained anything to me...

8) Post office box as sending address for a military unit? And P.O.B. "34567"? Why not "CDEFG"? An amazing coincidence? A lazy forger? An inside joke? Does anybody know the address of the 111th? - Apparently this was in fact the correct PO Box

9) As noted (item 8) in PowerLine Blog ( http://www.powerlineblog.com/
) , "the signatures on the CBS documents do not appear to be authentic. Check out the two signatures below. The one on the left is an actual signature of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The one on the right is from one of the CBS documents. It's not even close; in fact, it doesn't even look like the person who signed it made any attempt to copy Killian's signature." - No idea on this one

10) Looking at the same signatures, note that Killian seemed to have a perfectly normal, non-proportional space typewriter for Bush's discharge. Not the same typewriter? Hmmm.

Let me type this the I gotta go hit the weights


First let me point out a couple of things. The Headers are in the same font as the rest of the document. But the header doesn't have a superscript th. So if they were faked and the superscript is automatic why didn't it do the same for the header. As far as how military records are kept, they are like snow flakes, every record is different. There is no damn standard for military record keeping. Every officer will write his memos different from the next guy. That goes for records as well. Remember records are kept and produced by humans and everyone does it differently. Especially in the days of typewriters. And as for the signatures, man I sign my name depending on how I feel. Sometimes its neat and clean and other times you couldn't tell who signed it. But the real stickler is this. He knew of the records for over a week and yet he has released no response indicating they are fake. That says enough right there.

 

[arsbanned]

This is just hilarious, poring over the minutiae of fonts, proportional typefaces and other barn-burning hot issues.
The American people have the system they deserve.