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
It will have as much effect on CBS as planting firebombs on Chevy pickups to fake fires from collisions had on ABC.
JERRY B. KILLIAN
Stop posting the same thing from thread to thread.
The documents in question are NOT slick graphics from newsies animations.
That was my hesitation as well. The vile Clintonites aren't rank amateurs at fraud and smear by any means. I think your admonitions to slow down regarding this "investigation" were well intended and wise.
This message is for DNC chairman Terry the tool McCauliffe, you are going to have to eat the same shit you produced, hahahahaah LLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR
Also, those IBM Selectrics were built like a tank, and they did not fail very often. My family's business had one that lasted for at least 10 years of regular use, without adjustment, even after it was refurb'ed and sold to us.
Dan Rather and CBS News knew the document was fake, why else would he include "our own analyst determinded the document was not a fake?" ...covering his ass before the crap hit the fan?
"it looks like CBS was duped"
No, it looks like they LIED in order to propagate a political point of view!
We once spent a whole day insisting that a plane did not hit the Pentagon here at FR...
I am just saying we keep our integrity if we pitch the story as:
Are these images of the actual documents? Cause these images are fake.
p.s. stop reading the same post over and over again... ;)
They should have used Alger Hiss' typewriter.
HURRAH! Sean Hannity just reported on this thanks to a caller-Sean credited FreeRepublic.com and said the Freepers are often out in front of a story! Must have said the word "freepers" three or more times! Good WORK and KUDOS to all the rabid investigators here!
BTW, this discussion of old IBM Executive typewriters brings back many old memories. Back in the 1970's, in pre-word processing days, I was what was known as a "repro" typist. We typed rough copy on blue-line cardstock, then used razor blades and a light table to mortise in changes. Anyone here recognize the term "walking copy?" The proportional spacing made it possible for use to "justify" the right margin by counting picas at the end of a line, then redistributing them along the spaces between words to extend the length of the line. Proportional spacing also made it possible to insert the word "dogs" into the space where the word "dog" had been.
There was a real art back in those days to being a "repro typist." We groused at the writers and editors who continually asked us to change words, insert copy, and otherwise perform miracles on the printed page!!! An era ended when word processing equipment was invented.
Please read before posting. Does the expert in post #1 say that? No
Then why are you repeating it? There are problems, but we need to avoid making untrue statements.
It would be stupid. But the lamestream press is so used to for years working on "Gentleman's agreement" wink-and-a-nod basis, in which no journalist DARES to criticize a "colleague that anything is acceptable.
The documents were faked.
They were xeroxed and then faxed then rexeroxed to get that nice slick out of focus look.
But on a side note, I have seen the mods get slightly bent about repetetive posts being put on multiple threads, unless it adds something to the discussion.
So, as a general rule, if I feel it doesn't add to the current discussion, I usually don't repost stuff.
(Unless it's a Zot thread.. then it's fair game!)
Laters, happy FReeping.
Sad to say, you're probably right. They'll just treat this like NBC treated Lisa Myer's Dateline piece on Juanita Broderick (which I still have on tape, BTW).
for use to "justify" = for us to "justify"
Someone made the memos appear old, so that would be less likely a mere retyping.
As I noted to you on the other thread, inspired by your observation, the supposed Bush released memo has apparently the same font and "footless 4". Apparently someone redid that one too - but it isn't made to look old.
I haven't seen anyone comment on the Bush released memo, as it appears at CBS.
Maybe the Bush people did it, maybe CBS. How long ago was the Bush memo released...and if the new memos are forgeries, did th forgers imitate the font to match the retyped memo and this is their fatal flaw?
Not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but two things:
1. The date in para 1 reads "14 May, 1972". There is no comma in my experience with government or military when using official style dating...which should read "14 May 1972." Civies in norml life use May 14, 1972. Suggests confusion on the part of a typist not used to regularly using military style dating.
2. Would a military doc both spell out "no later than" and use the acronym "NLT"? Seems somewhat of overkill. Seems to me NLT would be understood. Perhaps some nitpicking on my part, but it smacks of someone wanting to give military feel to memo via acronyms - but wanting to make sure we get the meaning as well.
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.
Then they faxed the fakes to the WH and published them on their web site as originals. Extremely sloppy and unethical. Especially since they would have affixed signatures to re-created documents that they had prepared.
They could easily do what you suggest by displaying the text of the document in a more readable format but also displaying a copy of the original(s) that allow anyone to review whether their transcript of the original was accurate.
524 West 57th Street
Phone: (212) 975-4114, or
(212) 975-3691 for Dan Rather's office
Fax: (212) 975-1893
Comparing the memos available on the CBS News website, one finds the author used the superscript "th" in some, and did not use this special key in another.
That key is a single-stroke special character.
It's the smoking gun to this latest bit of phoney-baloney from an overeager media seeking to prop up another leftie.
Your document overlay has convinced me. There is no question that the "May 1972" memo is exactly the same font as the version you just created.
Then why are you repeating it? There are problems, but we need to avoid making untrue statements.
From the expert's analysis:
I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.
The point I was trying to make, is that most documents would not have had anything like the 04 May 1972. Look at the original and it has this as the unit header
111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron
Yet, in the body of the letter on the second line, this is the format
2. Report to 111thF.I.S.
Another note on the abreviation of the unit, the unit should have been FIS without periods.
Original thread with the memos.
But the look of the documents reminded me of an office game variously called 'the unreadable memo' and other such.
Basically you run the memo through the xerox machine and then the fax so many times that it is so garbaged up as to be unreadable.
Was one way of ticking off my old Captain as well, turn in paperwork so illegible that he had to guess what it was for and why he needed it.
Only saw that pulled once, the Cap didn't ask for quite so much paperwork afterwards.
Meanwhile that little "th" looks SO peculiar. It's just possible that a place with "th" in its name would buy wheels containing that character, but...hmmm...no.
There are lots of problems with the documents, but I refuse to believe they weren't done in imitation of real documents. I believe the "personal" documents were provided by an anti-Bush family member.
The 3-line centered heading is curious to me. If it was supposedly hand-typed, that means that this colonel knew how to manually center a proportional font.
In my old typing lessons, centering on a manual or electric typewriter involved finding the center, and then backspacing one space for every 2 letters. I have NO idea how one would center a proportional font on a typewriter, as the spaces would not be equal.
No problem. Even if I had a photo editor that was capable of rotating in much smaller increments, the distortions caused by the repeated photocopying of the copy of the copy, etc., would most likely prohibit an exact match.
RE: "They should have used Alger Hiss' typewriter."
But this is a Dennis Miller style of joke with a very obscure reference and I'm probably the only one here that knows that you are refering to Whitacker (sp?) Chambers and the attempts by Hiss to claim that the pumpkin papers were forgeries.
Good point on the commas in the dates. You'll also notice that some of the memos have commas and some don't. Interesting that the writer would change his own style back and forth so quickly.
An old ad for 5000 Longmont #7
"5000 Longmont, #7 in Galleria area (Area 22)
3-4/4. Welcome to this very sophisticated Galleria area 1 story townhome with quarters. Former residence of film star Gene Tierney. Immaculate master & guest suites. Furnishings also available. $450,000 "
Gene Tierney? not a bad neighbor to have, I'd say. (Kidding.) What does this ad to this thread? Not much, but I thought it was interesting.
You would be surprised how many Alger Hiss threads have been posted on FR over the years.
I have read most of the the accounts of the Chambers/Hiss proceedings, yet there are many freepers who know a lot more of them than I.
I remember when the Venona papers were made available there were lots of threads of the story.
Yeah, I was going down that path, too, but from what I've read it's not unusual at all for zip codes to morph and change over time due to population growth.
In fact, today's 77027 is approx. 2 miles from today's 77056, so it's not that big of a stretch that it could have been one and now the other over the past 30-plus years. Pres Bush 41 lives in or near 77056, in fact.
I have not seen such detailed analysis of typed memos since I read a book on the Majestic 12 (Area 51) documents. At least in the case of those documents, if they are forgeries, they are pretty good forgeries. The CBS documents look like poor forgeries IMHO.
"Good point on the commas in the dates. You'll also notice that some of the memos have commas and some don't. Interesting that the writer would change his own style back and forth so quickly."
Perhaps suggesting the hands of at least two forgers at work. A conspiracy!
I have to question the content of the memo. Perhaps some Air Force types can help us out in regards to AF-15 requirements concerning flight physicals. In the Navy we go by OPNAV 3710 which mandates annual flight physical to be given during the aviators birth month.
An "Upchit" from Air Force flight surgeon is recognized by the Navy and I thought the requirements were very similar.
President Bush's birthday is the 6th of July. Why would the Col have such a hard one to get him in for a physical 50 days early? Did you guys not use the birth month? When did his physical actually expire?
Great point!!! The chance that a manually centered header on a 1970's typewriter and an auto-centered MS Word header would be so close is, in my opinion, NIL!
More reason this is fake....I looked into the PO box on this and found ALL the TX Nat'l Guard PO Boxes. They are all FOUR digits.
Actually, this is a reason why I had NOT been convinced that the documents were fake. I remember using IBM Selectric's with the "type balls" in the early '70s. Different type balls had different single stroke special characters. One of the keys on the typewriter would type various different characters depending upon which type ball you had inserted.
I don't specifically recall whether there was a type ball with a superscript "th" character, but I do remember balls with "1/2", "1/4", ©, ®, , and other special characters so there could very well have been ones with a single stroke superscript "th" character. If someone were using a typewriter with a "th" character they might very well forget to use it sometimes and type "th" instead.
However, the document overlay posted by Blood of Tyrants has me convinced. There is no question that the font on the "May 1972" document is identical to the font on the document that was just created by Blood of Tyrants.
I've got one of those, exactly like the one in the old advertisement you posted. I bought it at an auction of Texas state agency used and surplus office equipment in 1980 and lugged it around all through college and law school. The thing weighs a ton but was built like a tank.
This has been discussed. The address, zip code, etc all match other official documents released about Bush.
I like old machines. I have a couple manual Royal typewriters, one with all-caps. Built like tanks indeed!
I wondered about that too.
Then it's just a matter of totalling the value of each letter, adding an average of 3 picas between each word, dividing by 2, finding the center point, backspacing the required number of units, and then typing the line. The typist had the freedom to add or subtract units between words (or even units between letters in a word) so as to make an individual line or word come out "right." I have done this exercise hundreds, if not thousands, of times, in my old life as a "repro" typist in the 1970's.
On other thing, the 'backspace' key on these typewriters moved the platen back just 1 unit. I.e., to backspace over an 'm' would take 5 strokes, over a 't' would take 3 strokes.
All of this is just to say that I am becoming convinced the Killian document is a forgery. While it is definitely possible to manually center individual typewritten lines, it seems implausible to me that such lines typed 30+ years ago would somehow exactly duplicate the same exercise of today's word processors.
Sorry to be so long winded.