Skip to comments.Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake? (UPDATED: "At Least" 90% Positive They're Fake)
Posted on 09/09/2004 1:22:10 PM PDT by TastyManatees
click here to read article
Dr. Bouffard ran this number and could not find a match in his entire database of over 4,000 typewriter fonts that have been maintained and collected into his computer database since 1988. Otherwise, the font is very indicative of Times New Roman, the font that is only available on computer word processing programs.And what of CBS' claim to have verified the documents before publication?
* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.
I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."
Fox needs to jump all over this!!
Soooo does this mean we will be hearing this in the mainstream media tonight? I doubt it.
Nice work. Sorry I jumped all over you earlier.
If these were forgeries, wouldn't President Bush know that and have the White House all over the issue?
What if it is fake on purpose? Sort of...
If I was a PA on 60 Minutes charged with creating the digital graphics for this story the following might happen:
After scanning the original documents I find they are illegible digitally. So I retype verbatim screen shot, bring it into PhotoShop, paste, apply a dimestore old XEROX filter, then photoshop out the signature and place it. Deadline met, the stylized graphic for production has been created. In general the networks do not require the actual document be shown, they have often in the past insisted it is ok to display the actual text in whatever format meets their production needs. So long as the content is not changed.
It needs to be confirmed that those images on the web, and in the show are images of the actual documents before this story goes on.
I am just saying we should start with the question are these the real documents? Cause these images are not consistent with the period.
Below is what I typed on my computer using word 2000, Times New Roman. This sure looks like the same as the memo being passed around to me.
19 May 1972
Memo to File
SUBJECT: Discussion with Bush, 1 st Lt Bush
1. Phone call from Bush. Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November. I told him he could do ET for three months or transfer. Says he wants to transfer to Alabama to any unit he can get in to. Says that he is working on another campaign for his dad.
2. Physical. We talked about him getting his flight physical situation fixed before his date. Says he will do that in Alabama if he stays in a flight status. He has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have the time. I advise him of our investment in him and his commitment. Hes been working with staff to come with options and identified a unit that may accept him. I told him I had to have written acceptance before he would be transferred, but think hes also talking to someone upstairs.
You just watch.
WOW! The blogosphere is all over this and it's running like wildfire. There's ahardly a blog out there not discussing this now.
It's difficult to keep up with it all but it seems that the biggest giveaway is not just the proportional spacing which (although rare) was available on some typewriters at the time, but the font, the line breaks which corresponds 100% to MS Word, the typeface (Times New Roman - rare or unavailable on typewriters at the time). Also, some of the language used, the abbreviations, etc. are very uncharacteristic of the military at that time.
Now we're getting somewhere. This has enough specifics to demand access to the original document. At the very least, the most nearly original copy, one that hasn't been scanned electronically.
Now we can get past the irrelevant issues of the superscript and proportional font.
It would be really cool to demand a fistful of documents from the same time and same office to see if the font matches exactly.
What is so stunning is that Rather and friends believe that people in this country are so stupid that no one would know it was a fraud.
I think some of the earlier arguments deserved jumping on. This is an expert's opinion, based on actual font samples and not someone's half-baked assertion that typewriters couldn't do that.
Geez, even the most incompetent forger would try to match actual documents from the period.
No problem. Sorry if I was a little sarcastic. That IBM Composer sure looked like a witch to work with.
Why doesn't someone contact IBM (since they made the only proportional font equipment in the early 70's). Surely they have an archive of their texts-- and if its not theirs, its fake.
Just goes to show what the lib dems will stoop to.....
I wonder what harkin will say on this now, that pathetic piece of crap excuse of a senator....
Nothing reported on CBS can ever be believed again without conclusive evidence if this turns out to be a hoax.
By the way, IBM's proportional-font typewriters were very rare and VERY expensive back in the 1972-1973 time period. I highly doubt the Texas Air National Guard would have access to such expensive machines back then.
That should be a task that can be accomplished with a little effort. Anything that came over the Commanding officer's signature which dealt with official business should be discoverable. For instance See BS claims to have had originals of the Col's signature to compare with their documents. Where did they find it? If on an official memo or order they should produce it for comparison.
Drudge already has it up! Prepare for a fecal-fling!
Thanks for enlightening us all. No really, you raised our level of understanding of the issue to a level I personally didn't think could be achieved. You are absolutely vital to this discussion, and you deserve credit for holding CBS to their words. Without your expertise and calm help in sorting out the forgery question, we all would have been lost.
Really. I mean it.
Look, we are in agreement at this point, but how half baked was the assumption about the proportional font being an indicator of forgery in view of the fact that this expert endorses it?
sorry, that's a bogus rationalization.
First, have you ever worked with a scanner? It doesn't make things less legible.
Second, they'd retype the documents, and then create all the artifacts to make it look like an old document?
Third, instead of putting up the original document online, they put up their re-created document, and pass it off as original?
Sorry, this theory is ridiculous.
IBM typewriter with proportional spacing was introduced in 1941.
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.
On the Executive, you could optionally have removable type-bars. This is somewhat like later Smith-Corona portables which have removable type-slugs on the two outermost type-bars, with corresponding changeable keytop caps. In this case, though, it's the whole type-bar.
Howie Carr, Boston Herald, RKO Radio Boston, is now reading the articles on air....audience New England and NY.
If you fire up Word with default margins and default font (Times New Roman at 12 pts), and type the text of the memos yourself, the results are exactly the same as the pdfs of the actual memos. Characters line up with characters on adjacent lines perfectly. (I did this myself with the last memo.) It's hard to avoid the conclusion that not only are these memos fake, they're not even very good fakes. I hope this ends Rather's career.
LOL. This place is amazing...
This is so cool . . . how many times has the partisan media twisted some seemingly positive piece of information about Bush into a bizarre negative attack (like that whole yellow cake uranium fiasco, where the entire focus of the MSM was on who in the Bush Whitehouse leaked the info) . . . now the blogosphere is pulling the same thing on CBS . . . CBS thought they had nailed Bush, but now the story is all about CBS and how big of a lie they told . . . the point they tried to make has faded into the background noise, drowned out by this new hoax scandal . . . they are going to have to defend themselves, rather than attack Bush . . . sweet . . .
He's pretty good at steering this ship, too!! He's always on Watch. God love him and protect him.
The above is a superimposition of an MS Word 2002 document (red) and the "original" memo (gray).
The document was typed using Times New Roman size 12. The document 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 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???
These things have feet, even hard core rats that I know read Drudge.
The obvious question is why would CBS would not vet them very carefully before airing them?? I know Dan Rather is in the tank for Kerry, as reported earlier. Did he run roughshod over the other producers and editors at CBS who may have counseled further investigation?? This may have been Rather's swan song and he couldn't resist it!! Could this have been a plant by some anti-CBS hoaxers who couldn't believe that CBS would go for such obvious bait?? Fun questions to ponder this afternoon.
The expert was suspicious about the proportional font, but consider this: wouldn't that be the first thing anyone would notice? How smart would it be for CBS to present a document that couldn't possibly be typed in 1972?
Don't answer that.
How smart would it be for a forger to produce an impossible document that sticks out like a sore thumb, especially when ordinary military typewriters are easily available?
I respect the expert's opinion, particularly when he gets into the nuts and bolts of typeface differences. This is enough to require a look at the original document.
Can someone dig up other documents prepared by this guy around the same time to see if they match the type on these? Go!
I guess the same odds that Kerry will sign standard form 180 and release "ALL" of his records.
uh... the production rooms of networks and webmasters of news sites are still filled with computer dorks, not journalists.
Ever seen that story with a pile of documents, then one of them flies up, then a line highlights and is "pulled out" so you can read it.
You think they use the actual documents to do that? Do they make it look like "actual documents"?
Did they re-record the translators voice for the Saddam interview because they didn't like the sound of the original?
It isn't just journalists in the production room. There are creative types, producers, and production artists. Believe me it is no trouble, would only take 5 seconds, and would be done at a whim because the producer thought the original didn't look "military" enough...
Besides we cover our ass if we pitch this story as:
Are those images of the real documents? Because those documents are not period, and are forgeries...
Watch as the CSI crew investigates their own network's participation in slander, libel and outright forgery. Special guest star James Carville gets maced, billy clubbed and cuffed by Captain Brass.
Nope. You forgot about rope-a-dope. It's too early. Let the Democrats get all their morons across this bridge..... then blow it up.
Different printers may produce slightly different outputs.
At a minimum, CBS should immediately bring forward the document expert they consulted. If this is a forgery, I expect the original source of the documents will have had some flimsy pretext for demanding anonymity, but CBS's own expert is fair game.
W will ignore this amd let refutation be taken care of by folks who are not part of his campaign. He doesnt even have to tell anyone to do it. Actually I dont think we need to bother with this at all. It only has the legs we give it. Frenchie would have takenmuch less damage from the swifties if he had kept the "refutation" far from his organization.
Agreed. I was defending a couple of posters who actually knew about proportional-font typewriters and were getting slammed for raising legitimate questions. I still think there are some features of the docs that look typed. But gosh, how incompetent must CBS be, to release word-processed documents that purport to date from 1973?
I'm impressed, and I've been looking at typefaces for over fourty years. Different versions of the same typeface are always a bit different. For one thing, they have to be jiggered to display pleasntly on a computer screen. Same holds for computer printers.
One thing few people know is that real (lead) fonts are tweaked for each type size. The proportions are jiggered to hold ink and look good for each size. This is not done by TrueType, and I doubt it it's done much at all in word processing.
I have catalogs of "professional" computer fonts. Some of them cost several hundred dollars for a single typeface.
Think about it. We're talking about the Left here. They believe you should be out working like a pack animal and sending everything you make so they can let you live in a highrise, take public transportation to work, eating what they think you should eat, reading only what they think you should read, etc. Do they regard the masses with that much contemp? You bet they do.
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.