Skip to comments.60 Minutes Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
Posted on 09/09/2004 11:44:01 AM PDT by Peach
Thursday, September 09, 2004 2:41 PM EST
By Melanie Hunter CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor September 09, 2004 02:34 pm
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts. 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. More to Come
Next job is to compare the typefont on John F'n "flip-flop fop" Kerry citations .
Were they typed with a portable or a Selectric.....?
Should be easy to determine.
In some ways I am more suspicious of the irregular formatting, improper abbreviation usage, and the "too clean" carbons than I am of the typeface. Just as an antique dealer can tell a 17th Century oak gateleg table from an even very superior 20th Century reproduction by noticing subtle inconsistencies in design and contruction methods, I believe I could tell a genuine 70s Air Force document from a 2004 forgery, but I would have to see and hold the documents themselves, These pdfs obscure some critical signs.
One killer test would be to find an old IBM Executive typewriter and a Selectric typewriter and prepare the same text on each using 12 pitch elite. Then measure and see if the text falls within one-inch borders allowing for a paper size of 8 x 10, not 8 1/2 x 11. If the formatted text only fits 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper, you have your smoking gun. They're forgeries. The Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
Also, use carbon sets and compare the appearance of the type to the type on the suspect documents. I assure you, NO ONE in the guard or Air Force was using a photostatic copier to prepare file copies of these documents in 1971-1973.
You are so right, but I think it all is making Bush look better anyway. I actually hope the (just don't get it) left keeps it up until Nov.
Huge differences between the sigs. Note that on the left top signature from the possible forgery, the capital J has a a much more straight right edge than in the valid lower signature. Second, and most glaringly, the top right tail on the K in the possible forgery curves up and in, while the top right tail on the K in the true memo curves down.
Nonetheless, there are similiarities that suggest the forger may have seen the original signature and attempted to duplicate.
People's signatures change over time, but not that much. There is a high probability that this was forged.
1. Sometimes people spell dates out. After 20 years active duty it's natural for me, though, to write 9 Sep 04.
2. The memo giving the order to report for a flight physical is boiler plate. They were generated by some regulation and had to be sent every year to everybody. They were also just as easily ignored....they were pro forma.
3. This signature pasting is a target rich environment. I'd keep digging here. Could it be a signature stamp that he'd had made?
4. Sometimes we did type our own letterhead for some letters. We also used official letterhead. If you were doing stuff on your own at your home, you might just type your own letterhead.
5. Depends on the typewriters in that era. See above...he could have had access to his own. I did it, so there's no reason he couldn't have. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean the technology was available. That's a rich avenue to pursue, imho.
Good post. Thanks.
Woo-hoo! Freepers, you did it! I love it!
(1) Bush bribery attempts re the National Guard.
(2) Secret deals between Bush's oil company and Saudi.
(3) "Racist" notes / documents / notes with Bush's signature
(4) Affairs with various women
(5) Secret slush funds
(6) Paid appointments to government posts (e.g. ambassadors)
I'm sure I'm only covering a small sampling of what these "patriots" have planned. Remember, don't be shocked by anything that happens in the next six weeks.
I went here to see the documents, but wait til you see the nasty comments by the posters at the WaPost!
your picyure of dan cr*pper(rather-not capitolised on purpose), the kerry edwards button you have on dan's dress jacket, could you please change the "Old Glory Flag" to the more appropriate "red flag with hammer and sickle", which is more approriate attire of kerry-edwards-rather????
In reference to flashing post 216. I don't remember where I saw it, but one of these bloggers was doing something similar to what you were doing and noticed the discrepencies in the 'th'. He was thinking that this might have been a 'special key stroke' on the typewriters and made him worry about the authenticity of his claims, despite the otherwise perfect fit. He was then told by a reader, or figured it out himself - forget which, that when the document is printed the differences go away. In other words, the screen represents the font differently then when it is printed - due to configuration errors or font settings. If this can be duplicated then it will only increase the certainty of these fakes. I wish I had the link to this blogger, but can't remember where it was.
Brit Hume will be reporting on this shortly.
The above is a superimposition of an MS Word 2002 document (red) and the "original" memo (gray).
The MS Word document was typed using Times New Roman size 12. I used the standard MS Word formatting. The only deviation: The header was further indented 1/8th of an inch from the default.
In order to superimpose the 2, the original was rotated once and resized twice, once in the horizontal direction and once in the vertical. The relative proportions were NOT changed on either document.
Anybody would like to guess the chances that a 1970's typewriter and a 2002 version of MS Word would yield documents that are so similar???
Yes, but it's my understanding that these were photocopies .. with the look of being copies of copies of copies. That would make it difficult to get the "feel" of the paper as a typewritten page.
At the time, what was more likely, use of a carbon copy or Xerox?
Slander hell. It is a violation of FCC regulations and should be prosecuted as such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.