Skip to comments.Bush Guard Documents: Forged
Posted on 09/09/2004 10:49:41 AM PDT by Jack_1
I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsofts Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date 18 August 1973, then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.
And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as authentic.
(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...
Check my post on the CBS Story, I stated the same thing.
Guys, this has GOT to be a trap. Nobody could be THIS dumb?!
That bothered me, too.
I've never seen a 1971 typerwriter with superscript for the 187th They are slightly different there. The original is slightly above the number and yurs is level at the top. Either way, typewriters don't do that, to my knowledge.
New Questions On Bush Guard Duty [CBS USES FORGERIES TO SMEAR THE PRESIDENT!!!!!]
Are the Killian Memos Fakes?
THe THmoking Gun on Forged Killian Memos: UPDATE to Powerline Blog's "61st Minute" EvidenTH
Bush "Memos" Look Forged
I copied the memo's text (- white) over the lgf version, and vice versa. There is some difference in word length, for example the word running. May be scan artifacts, may not be. We need a higher resolution scan to know that.
I don't know much about the history of typewriters, but this looks very compelling to me. I remember taking typing in high school (in 1977) and learning on a manual typewriter; electric ones were not used in my school until 1978. We had a new electric one at home in 1977, and the type never looked as good as that 1973 memo.
The type is not Times Roman. It appears to be a specimen of what typographers refer to as a "square serif" or "Egyptian." The baseline is all over the place, indicating some kind of strike-on technology, and I notice that the typist followed the old, amateurish rule of using a lower-case "l" instead of a regular numeral one. However, the typist used a single space after periods, as opposed to the double-space that was common back then.
Now the question is: who forged it, and why? And did they intentionally do such a poor job covering their tracks?
Anyone heard if Rush or Drudge has picked up on this story? Incredible!!! I hope Rather gets exposed BIG TIME!!!
I think you might be right. This seems to too easy. How could the lunkheads at CBS have missed this - though I hope they did!
With an occassional IBM Selectric typewriter.
Our Computers were Burroughs (with of course no capability to word process).
You guys seem to have really caught'em red handed.
I'm still trying to maintain some skepticism, but I typed a "1" and a lowercase "l" in Time New Roman, and they look exactly the same.
This is real weird, and if it is a fake, I am damn leery of why it's so easy to spot.
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman?
From: Charles Bigelow
Date: 5 May 1994
"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)
During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.
In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.
The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".
During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.
In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on).
When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist.
As for the actual visual differences in the designs, well, like any good academic author, I leave the detection and analysis of those "as an exercise for the reader".
© Charles Bigelow
Also look at the text of the letter they used itself. "Austin is not happy either.". The implication here is that IF they had said something like "Bush Sr." or even used Bush's Father's name it's something that might have a paper trail elsewhere. By using "Austin", it's like a code word that implicates Bush "operatives" or "family" without saying or typing the words. Another interesting word study would be how long has "sugar coat" been in the military venacular?
Can they be that dumb?
National Review's blog 'The Corner' has picked it up the link to the littlegreenfootballs commentary. See 'Forgery' [KJL] at 2:01pm.
See my post #69
"And did they intentionally do such a poor job covering their tracks?"
My thoughts exactly.
I found it interesting that the last digit of the dates of the August 18 1973 memo and the May 19 1972 memo are almost perfectly aligned, column wise, even though they were written a 15 months apart. Yet, the left margin differs substantially. I'd even take a crack that all three line up knowing what my little copier does here.
I expect that someone that understands this stuff will be able to say if we have anything here or not. Pretty weird if you ask me though.
Here is my spuerimposed version.
That is the most damning piece of evidence I've seen so far.
Oh, I think they can, because they are desperate. But it could be trap, or even worse, the MSM and the Kedwards Kampain might find a way to shove it doen our throats. IF they manage the latter, what further lies and of what magnitude will they execute on the country.
FReepmail me an address and I'll send you a superimposed version. I'll open up the original as a red tif and the new version as a green tif and then combine them in NIH ImageJ. Where they overlap, the signal will be yellow.
Technically it would be possible with a mechanical typewriter I believe. In the case of the Selectric, it would require that the ball (which moves from left to right as each line is typed) increment based on the variable width font after each stroke.
I have no idea if a Selectric actually worked this way but it could have. I have also looked at the original and the Microsoft Word version in Photoshop and they overlay very very closely. We need to put the Selectric issue to bed or at least understand it. Even if a Selectric could do it, the likelihood of a match this good seems remote to me.
I dunno about this. I'm excited that this is a forgery in that we might have some new hard evidence. Having said that, I smell a bit of a trap. They may be waiting for Drudge to report this and the bam!, they will have a secret Selectic with Killians fingerprints on it and Drudge will the tagged as a hypster again.
Crossing my fingers
It kinda looks it. My thing is the dude on Blather is none of the people mentioned in the memos.
I have contacted Drudge, Hannity, Hume, and about 8 Document examiners hoping one of them would look into this and then issue a press release, for publicity.
60 Minutes Spokesperson: Kelli Edwards 212-975-6795
I am certain that I had an IBM Selectric in 1975 that could print the tiny 1/2 and 1/4. I have a vague memory of it also having "th".
Bear in mind, that anyone designing fonts for MS Word, or true-type, would make an effort to make sure that fonts are as close as possible to the "standard." In other words, the fact that MS Word memo matches the 1973 memo, is only proof that true-type font designers did a good job. It is not conclusive proof that they are forgeries.
I'm convinced they are real because (1) they're too particular about names and terminology, etc; (2) they're not very damaging at all to Bush. If they were forgeries, then (1) the forgers probably wouldn't get the terminology correct; and (2) there would be more specific items planted to damage the President, e.g, "Informed Bush that Jack Daniels was not regulation rations for F-102 survival kit."
Can we compare these forged documents with others in President Bush's NG record? Like, are these the only ones in Times New Roman font?
Well, you've got me convinced. Excellent work. I hope a number of things like this accumulate and bury CBS and RATher.
I remember a thread about a year ago when the State Department, I believe, authorized a new font for official memos.
Is there an old Navy book of procedures that states the requirement for Courier font?
Guys, I've worked in the post production business and reality TV for years, so I've had a LOT of exposure to the "craft" of fakery, computers, special effects and technology-- and this is simply a jaw-droppingly obvious forgery.
BUT-- I submit to you that the lunatic who foisted this forgery was smart enough to "dirty up" the document, apparently by photo-copying it a few times to build up contraxst, dirt, artifacts, smearing, etc-- all in an effort to make the document appear older than it was.
So he/she was stupid not to go out and get a vintage typewriter, but was clever enough to attempt to make the document appear old.
Just my humble opinion, but the tempest over the typewriter is wasted effort. What might be interesting is whether the memos were altered and copied, and whether the originals are available.
It is my understanding that the memos were provided by the (anti-Bush) family.
SECNAVINST 5216.5C comes to mind.
And I believe Dandy Dan Rather is smearing Bush with forged documents. And I further believe he knows they are forged. and I futher believe... Agh, you get the point. Dan is so sleazy.
This is supposedly the deceased commander's signature and there is an obvious difference between the two.
Where'd you get those two? Can you provide a link?
I think you might be right. This seems to too easy. How could the lunkheads at CBS have missed this - though I hope they did!
Two days ago, Keith Olbermann reported as truth a story from a satirical website that said that studies showed that people lose 10% of their IQ after they have children. Yesterday he had to retract that story after the owner of the website contacted MSNBC to tell them it was only a joke.
The MSM is not only biased, it's lazy. It could happen.
I'll go look for it.