Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake? (UPDATED: "At Least" 90% Positive They're Fake)
INDC Journal ^ | 9/10/04 | Bill

Posted on 09/09/2004 1:22:10 PM PDT by TastyManatees

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-135 last
To: kennedy

I spent enough time manually preparing our school's newsmagazine, including service as an article typist relying upon an IBM Seletric that I can say I never saw a superscript 'th' on any of the various Selectric golf balls then available. My stint in this role is around the same time of these documents, and would apparently involve similar typewriting equipment.

"1/2", "1/4" are characters that even some other typewriters I used then, and some of those currently in my collection of same, include.

Why a superscript "th" but no "st" or "nd", for another example?

I further agree about the type itself; the Selectric is the only model of the time in my recollection that would allow for changeable fonts, and Times New Roman was not available until the advent of software word processing.


101 posted on 09/09/2004 4:03:17 PM PDT by Chummy (RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote for Osama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

PBS' Lehrer is about to do a segment on this in a few minutes.....


102 posted on 09/09/2004 4:14:46 PM PDT by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees

I thought one site had a great line:

"It's getting to the point where if it were not for the obvious coordination with the Kerry campaign, the New York Times could probably file papers as a 527."

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/ny-times-prints-unverifiable-charges-against-bush-2004-09-09.html


103 posted on 09/09/2004 4:18:15 PM PDT by Amore (Go, Swifties, go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amore

PBS' Jim Lehrer bought the SeeBS line, hook and sinker. No mention of the authenticity of the documents. Nobody ever accused Jim Lehrer of asking tough questions. Let's set the hook tomorrow.


104 posted on 09/09/2004 4:30:40 PM PDT by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: RagingBull
I just noticed (and tested): MS word will convert 1st to 1st, just as it converts 111th to 111th.

The "document" does not use a superscripted "1st Lieutenant". That doesn't mean anything either way, though... if it was a fake, the author might have overlooked 111th, if it was real (haha), the author may typed out "st" rather than hitting the st key.

Maybe a professional can chime in and let us know if it's easier to type st/th or hit some obscure custom key :)

105 posted on 09/09/2004 5:22:42 PM PDT by RagingBull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11

Oops, I had too many windows open. I meant to say this here on this thread: (instead of here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1211238/posts?page=3#2)

LOL, hey rocklobster11 ! I saw where you first posted it. Good job, showing how easily the fakes could be done!! I agree, with someone quite earlier, who said 'send this to CBS' - LOL. Please do it.

Great skills, you have, I might add.

I think most are still reading stuff about it right about now. Reading and not responding...quite yet.

But this issue should resonate. Ya done good showing how a person could make a fake look somewhat real. My hat's off to you.



106 posted on 09/09/2004 5:23:14 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RagingBull

You can change Word settings, probably on when to superscript things even.


107 posted on 09/09/2004 5:36:03 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: All
I have held my fire until it looks like for sure these are forgeries. Folks, it is time to Freep the CBS Evening News, where Dan Rather's office is based....this gets you to the newsroom:

212-975-3691

Number found on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133594/posts

Ask just what "investigation" went into authenticating the memos and whether they will offer an on-air retraction.

Demand they apologize for this EXTREME lapse of journalistic practice and basic skills.

Also, contact the president of CBS News, Andrew Heyward:

Phone: (212) 975-4321

Fax: (212) 975-1893

108 posted on 09/09/2004 5:36:32 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (BYPASS FORCED WEB REGISTRATION! **** http://www.bugmenot.com ****)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: JLO
Oops, I had too many windows open. I meant to say this here on this thread: (instead of here)

no problem. perhaps it will get people to go to this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1211238/posts?page=1

It's definitely worth a read.

109 posted on 09/09/2004 5:54:37 PM PDT by rocklobster11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"Geez, even the most incompetent forger would try to match actual documents from the period."


"Geez, even the most incompetent forger would try..." to find a similar typewriter from the period and then make the forgeries.

This whole episode is so insulting to anyone with a minimal level of commonsense.


110 posted on 09/09/2004 6:00:19 PM PDT by torchthemummy (Florida 2000: There Would Have Been No 5-4 Without A 7-2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: torchthemummy
I was rumaging through Killian's personal files, and I just ran across this updated memo.


111 posted on 09/09/2004 6:03:53 PM PDT by rocklobster11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11

FUUUUny!


112 posted on 09/09/2004 6:08:43 PM PDT by torchthemummy (Florida 2000: There Would Have Been No 5-4 Without A 7-2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees

Hey CBS:
Check out that last phrase of Numbers 32:23.


113 posted on 09/09/2004 6:10:00 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11

I'm heading out to watch the Patriots (I'm a New Englander)but I've forwarded the memo to ABC and NBC to see if they'll run it (ha, ha).

Take care!


114 posted on 09/09/2004 6:10:42 PM PDT by torchthemummy (Florida 2000: There Would Have Been No 5-4 Without A 7-2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees

Tell it to the President of CBS News, Andrew Heyward.

Andrew Heyward -- CBS News
Title: President
Department: Headquarters
Phone: (212) 975-4321
Fax: (212) 975-1893
Address: 524 W 57th St, New York, NY 10019

FAX him. Load his desk tomorrow morning. My FAX is already there.

I basically asked him if he was satisfied having his reputation dependent on Dan Rather and the folks at 60 Minutes.


115 posted on 09/09/2004 6:10:43 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
You can change Word settings, probably on when to superscript things even.

The low-powered moron who typed this garbage used the default settings. Therefore, busted.

116 posted on 09/09/2004 6:11:13 PM PDT by lavrenti (Think of who is pithy, yet so attractive to women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RightField
While it is definitely possible to manually center individual typewritten lines

What are the chances that a heterosexual male would have these skills in the early 1970s, before computers made typists of us all, though?

117 posted on 09/09/2004 6:46:57 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees

1-- proportional spacing not generally available
2 -- superscripts not generally available
3 - small "th" single element not generally available
4 - Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available
5-The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, tactic of forgers
6--Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.
7--Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it.
8 -- Date usually with three letters, or in form as 110471.
9 - words run over consistent with word processor
10 - may be a Times Roman or similar font not generally available then (per Haas Atlas)
11 - signature looks faked
12 - no errors and whiteout
13 - no letterhead
14 - exact match for Microsoft Word Processor
15 - Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
16 - Overlap analysis is an exact match
17 - absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter.
18 - 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist
19 - Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston
20 - it would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer.
21 - Bush's grade would "normally" be abbreviated "1Lt" not "1st Lt"
22 - Subject matter bizarre
23 - Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
24 - kerning was not available
25 - In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
26 - Language not generally used by military
27 - Not signed or initialed
28 - Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.



118 posted on 09/09/2004 6:50:23 PM PDT by mabelkitty (Zealous Troll Hunter - and you know who you are - you've been warned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

abc has already questioned if the CBS docs are legit.... I know... amazing isn't it:)


119 posted on 09/09/2004 6:53:11 PM PDT by fhlh (polls are for topless dancers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator

To: mabelkitty; All

Those two are my biggest things, too. I've been a typist for many years, since at least 1969. Those weren't on any typewriter back in those days. IBM selectric had interchangeable balls who MAYBE could have been switched - mid-stream - while typing - (ya, right, like anyone would do that) - change balls, then change back againt to type the rest, and then change again. They were a pain to change. Superscript and smart quotes weren't part of IBM Selectric's regular balls. I worked for a state government office back then. No money available for frivolities. I highly doubt that national government had better equipment.

3 - small "th" single element not generally available
4 - Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available


121 posted on 09/09/2004 7:21:53 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear

Hi, can you post a link to it? I'd like to see it, but don't want to wade around too much and get muddied up.

Not to worry if you don't have it handy. I'll check it out if I get curious. Thanks for posting.


122 posted on 09/09/2004 7:26:05 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: JLO
The second line has 111th with the superscript th, and was dated 1968. All the rest have 111th with no superscript. They were obviously written on different typewriters at different times, but it obviously was possible to get a superscript in 1968, as these are official docs, supposedly. Of course the image was linked to from the DUmmy site, so who knows if it is real.


123 posted on 09/09/2004 7:26:09 PM PDT by rocklobster11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: JLO

124 posted on 09/09/2004 7:26:40 PM PDT by Chieftain (Support the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and expose Hanoi John's FRAUD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: JLO

Thanks for the GREAT INSIGHT, JLO!


125 posted on 09/09/2004 7:27:29 PM PDT by Chieftain (Support the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and expose Hanoi John's FRAUD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RightField; All

Old memories, LOL!

"Is there any significance to the fact that the 'th' in the very top title line is not the small font superscript like in the body of the document? Would it have been standard procedure to type the 'th' in two different ways. " Superscript and subscript could NOT have been in a LOWER CASE. It wasn't available, as I recall in a Selectric ball.

We had to use small letters, and manually adjust the carriage about a half a notch.

---

I'm with you RightField; I recall that also! I was taught to use lower case 'th'. I think that was the clinker!


126 posted on 09/09/2004 7:38:48 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
29 - what are the chances that military officer had very expensive (at that time) proportionally spacing TYPESETTER at his disposal instead of "ordinary" typewriter? Typesetters were used only by publishing and typesetting places. Much more expensive than Selectrics.

Definitely no way to perfectly lineup with today's computer produced output. Major stupid fake!

My first "typesetter" was Selectric modified with addition of magnets being run by Apple II, before daisy wheels and dot matrix printers. IBM had version of selectrics that were used as computer terminal, no proportional spacing.

Bunch of lying democRAT skunks, how well orchestrated, from head sKerry sKunk all the way to revolting spineless media prostitutes.

God Bless President Bush, few media decent and this J. Robinson baby - FReepy FReepers! Let's Roll!

127 posted on 09/09/2004 7:56:07 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian (Vote the RATS out!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: SirChas

"You also have to take into account the device (printer) that the document is printed on. That may account for things such as the "th" (like in 14th) not lining up exactly."


Perhaps. However, the same effect can be reproduced in MS Word. With minimal effort, a forger could easily raise or lower typed characters, regular or superscript, with ease to give a document a greater feel of having been originally typed.

One need only go in MS Word to FORMAT, then select FONT, then select the CHARACTER SPACING tab. On this tab you can play with the Position drop down to raise or lower a single letter and or superscipt. You can even select how many "points" to lower it by. The default on my computer is to 3pts when raising or lowering characters, but this can be increased or decreased.

Bottom line, one can use Word to reproduce the effect of the raised superscript, or even letters following slightly below other characters on the same line - mimicking type.

I was able to do this in a few seconds to raise the superscript "th" higher than the default setting, or to lower or raise characters on a given line. I'm not a techie type, so I don't know how to post the example to FreeRepublic, but anyone with Word can reproduce the effect per the instructions above.


128 posted on 09/09/2004 8:31:56 PM PDT by Miles the Slasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Chummy
Here is a sampling of the misinformation put forth on these threads that has already been debunked:

Budding Myth #1: "Proportional fonts were not available til the 80's."
Debunked: Proportional fonts were available on IBM typewriters in 1941.

Budding Myth #2: "Times New Roman font wasn't invented until 1988."
Debunked: The Times New Roman font was designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent.

Budding Myth #3: "There was no '4' available without a foot and the top closed."
Debunked: The IBM Selectric Composer Pressman Roman (Times New Roman) font of 1968 has exactly the right '4'.

Budding Myth #4: "The document was altered because one of the 'y's' is different from another 'y'."
Debunked: All typos made with typewriters were corrected by "altering" the document.

Budding Myth #5: "You need to use a complicated guage system to backspace with an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter."
Debunked: The IBM Selectric had a memory system that automatically adjusted the backstroke to exactly match the letter widths of the previously typed text as far back as 1968.

Budding Myth #6: "The type of typewriter that could do this would have cost $20,000 dollars back then."
Debunked: At least one type of typewriter that could do this was available for around $300.

These may be forgeries, but not because of any of the above reasons.
129 posted on 09/09/2004 8:36:07 PM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: rocklobster11; All

Here's my recollection how we did it along time ago. Subscript or Superscript - on a manual typewriter: you switched from Caps Lock On over to lower case. That was when I was a legal secretary. Then, you manually 'notched' up 1/2 roll on the typewriter. And, I was always taught to put the lowercase (subscript) or uppercase (superscript) in lower case letters. Superscript was 1/2 notch above the line; subscript was 1/2 notch below. AND in parentheses - ALWAYS!

That's how it was in the early 70's. That's my personal story, and I'm sticking to it. LOL. I was taught by the STATE government, at the time where I worked, that this was THE correct way. Low-grade typist I was, back then.

I'd guess all government agencies, state and federal, were similar then, as far as that paperwork goes.

Good grief, how times have changed, thank God.


130 posted on 09/09/2004 10:08:32 PM PDT by JLO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees

131 posted on 09/10/2004 6:56:07 AM PDT by buffyt (You don't create terrorists by fighting back. You defeat the terrorists by fighting back. ~GWBush~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
I'm not sure why you posed these to me, but I'll take a shot at your attempt to "debunk...budding myth"s.

Here is a sampling of the misinformation put forth on these threads that has already been debunked:

Budding Myth #1: "Proportional fonts were not available til the 80's." Debunked: Proportional fonts were available on IBM typewriters in 1941.

This takes out of context the sum of the whole; the documents feature proportional fonts in addition to superscripting, the font used, and so forth.

Budding Myth #2: "Times New Roman font wasn't invented until 1988." Debunked: The Times New Roman font was designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent.

The date of the creation of TNR I've not questioned, but rather its use on a typewriter contemporary to the documents' authorship. And again, one must consider the whole circumstances.

Budding Myth #3: "There was no '4' available without a foot and the top closed." Debunked: The IBM Selectric Composer Pressman Roman (Times New Roman) font of 1968 has exactly the right '4'.

Show an example.

Budding Myth #4: "The document was altered because one of the 'y's' is different from another 'y'." Debunked: All typos made with typewriters were corrected by "altering" the document.

Correcting a document with the same typewriter would result in characters identical, or nearly so, to the others.

Budding Myth #5: "You need to use a complicated guage system to backspace with an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter." Debunked: The IBM Selectric had a memory system that automatically adjusted the backstroke to exactly match the letter widths of the previously typed text as far back as 1968.

If one reads how to use the Composer, one would understand the use of the relative term "complicated."

Budding Myth #6: "The type of typewriter that could do this would have cost $20,000 dollars back then." Debunked: At least one type of typewriter that could do this was available for around $300.

What is the equivalent of $300 circa 1972 in $US 2004?
132 posted on 09/10/2004 9:59:46 AM PDT by Chummy (RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote for Osama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: harrycarey

Yeah, I've postd in most of the Hiss threads. But there are usually only 1 or 2 people (other than you and me) in the threads who actually know any of the details of the Hiss case.

Venona was a relatively recent news event, so a quite a few more people know the details.


133 posted on 09/10/2004 12:41:39 PM PDT by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

Besides, if your opponent is "swinging in the wind" why say something that might change the subject.


134 posted on 09/20/2004 8:46:31 PM PDT by JiminOregon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees

Re-visiting a classic- I notice it took this ‘Doctor’ 2 tres to even ntice the raised ‘th’ - the single biggest glaring error showing it is a forgery


135 posted on 12/14/2009 12:05:23 PM PST by Mr. K (Deathly afraid my typos become a freeper catchphrase...I'm series!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-135 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson