Posted on 09/11/2004 3:52:47 PM PDT by rocklobster11
Based on information I got from Hugh Hewitt's blog, provided to him from Rice University Computer Science professor Robert Cartwright, I decided to look at the memos for evidence of kerning. You can see from the image above, that the character combination "my" appears to be kerned in one document but not the other. However, I'm willing to write this off as being due to artifacts from the copying process. Also, the default Microsoft Word document that overlays perfectly with the memos does not use kerning.
Even without kerning, the Time New Roman (and other proportional fonts) on the computer has a negative offset with the letter f. That means that the top of the letter f will overhang the next character. This is not something that you would get from a normal typewriter in 1972, event with proportional fonts. The text below was written on an IBM Selectric with proportional fonts, and you can see that there is no overhang of the "f" chararacter on the character that follows
It seems that the only way these memos could have been written in 1972 would be on an IBM Selectric Composer, which was a desktop typesetting machine. There is an excellent analysis of the IBM Selectric Composer on http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html, that shows how close a document created on an IBM Selectric composer could match up to the memos in question. The image below shows the CBS memo overlaid with the output of the IBM Selectric Composer (overlay in red):
The line spacing is off, but if you read the site above, you will see that the line spacing could be adjusted, and you get a pretty good match to the CBS memos. However, this match is not as good as the one produced with Microsoft Word in default settings. To see this, you can look at this Flash animation showing an overlay of MS Word ontop of one of the memos. The animation takes about 30-45 seconds to run, so watch it all.
If you read the commentary at http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html, you will see the difficulty of creating this document on an IBM Selectric Composer: (e.g. requiring the switching out of font balls to get the superscript or the purchase of a special font ball just to add this non standard character, and the perfect centering of the header which matches identically to the way MS Word centers the same text.
The Boston Globe has interviewed an expert who confirms that these memos could have been created on an IBM Selectric Composer and that the Air Force completed service testing of the IBM Selectric Composer in April 1969. However, using the Composer was not a simple task, and it seems possible but improbable that the Texas Air National Guard would have had one of these machines or that Killian would have typed memos for his personal file on one of these machines. I've heard but do not have any evidence that the Composer was an expensive machine, on the order of several thousand dollars (which would be like $15,000 in todays terms).
All of the other documents in Bush's officially released files were not written with a proportional font, so it's up to CBS to produce other documents written in 1972 by Killian that are comparable to the CBS memos. Certainly, Killian or someone else wrote more than these 4 memos on this complex, expensive typesetting device.
It is possible that Killian wrote these memo's on an IBM Selectric Composer even though:
It's also possible that the Moon Landing was staged in a film studio. It's also possible that there are Alien remains in Hanger 18 in Roswell, N.M. Anything is possible. If CBS were a news organization rather than a Democratic 527 organization, they might at least admit that while possible, the probability is that these are forgeries, and that there is greater probability of finding the Loch Ness Monster than that these memos were written by Killian in 1972.
Dan will never admit that these are forgeries, and he beleives that proof of forgery lies on the viewer rather than CBS having the burden of proof of authenticity
So, for Dan's sake, let's assume that these memos are real. Dan has some Big Questions that he wants answered and he's too lazy to do the work himself, so I'll give him a hand.
Here are the Big Questions he asked last night on the CBS news, and here are the easily available answers:
Rather Lead In: There were attacks today on the CBS News "60 Minutes" report this week raising new questions about President Bush's Vietnam-era time in the Texas Air National Guard. The questions raised by our report include:
--Did a wealthy Texas oilman-friend of the Bush family use his influence with the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives .. to get George W. Bush a coveted slot in the National Guard .. keeping him out of the draft and any probable service IN Vietnam?
Answer: Ben Barnes, Democratic partisan and Kerry fundraiser, has made these claims many times over the years, and his story has not been consisitent. Under Oath, he had to admit that neither George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush asked him to do them any favors. He says it was a Bush friend who asked him to make a call. The person he supposedly called has denied that anyone did any favors to get Bush into the Guard. Ben Barnes daughter has disputed his accounts almost to the point of calling him a liar.
--Did Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer?
Answer: Ignoring the fact that there are no official documents reprimanding Bush for refusing a direct order, if we assume that the May 4 memo ordering Bush to get a physical by May 14 is legit, then we also have to assume that the May 19 memo is legit. In it, Killian acknowledges that he and Bush have discussed the physical and that Bush will take his physical in Alabama IF he continues his flight status. There is nothing in this memo about Bush disobeying a direct order, not is there in any other document official or unofficial. While the May 19 memo shows that Killian may be a little concerned about the investment that they have made in training Bush, Bush did serve 5+ years of a 6 year (not a lifetime of indentured servitude) commitment.
--Was Lieutenant. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to standards?
He was not suspended from the Guard, if that's what Dan meant to imply. He was suspended from flying status for missing his physical. He had obviously discussed dropping his flying status with Killian as evidenced in the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the May 19 memo. There were no negative performance evaluations in the official documents. The official May 1972 review was a glowing review with nothing negative to say, including praise of the fact that Bush was working on a political campaign and was a good representative of the Guard in the business community. The official May 1973 review just states that they could not review him because he had been off the base for the time period doing equivalent duty in Alabama. Despite the wording of the August 1, 1972 memo stating: On this date I ordered that 1st Lt Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered, there is nothing in the records to indicate that Bush did anything other than miss a physical, which was common for pilots who were not planning to continue flying. If Dan Rather has proof, it's up to him to produce it, rather than ask silly questions.
--Did Lieutenant Bush ever take a physical he was required and ordered to take? If not, why not?
Obviously he did not take the physical, and Bush has never said that he took the physical. His flight status was dropped due to missing the physical, so this is not a point of dispute. The May 19 memo does help to show that Bush had discussed dropping his flight status with his supervisor and that his supervisor was ok (if not exactly jumping for joy) about it.
--And did Lieutenant Bush, in fact, complete his commitment to the Guard?
He got an honorable discharge. That should be proof enough, but if you think he didn't it would be good to produce some evidence instead of just asking questions. Since you have no evidence, I can only imagine that you will bring up the disingenuous info from the Boston Globe story last week about Bush not completing his duty to seek alternate training after moving to Boston to go to Harvard Business School. Of course, you'd have to ignore the fact that he did not need to seek alternate training becuase he had asked for and was granted an early release from the Guard 6 months early (which is exactly the same thing John Kerry did in getting out 6 months early). Here is is request for discharge and recommendation for approval in September, 1973. Why would he report elsewhere after being discharged?
These questions grew out of new witnesses and new evidence -- including documents written by Lieutenant Bush's squadron commander.
Answer: Doesn't look like any new evidence to me Dan. Perhaps we would have new evidence if you demanded that John Kerry would fill out the Form 180 to release all his military records, as Bush did.
If I'm wrong I will stand corrected, but I understand that flight medicals (not physicals) were required to be undergone by the end of the pilot's birth month. In Lt Bush's case that would be July, not May. Would a CO issue an order for a medical prior to the regularly scheduled exam?
I think they were typically scheduled in the month of enlistment (May) but that you had 12 weeks leeway (July) for scheduling purposes. There is no doubt that he was not past-due on his physical until July 31, as evidenced by the initiation of the process to remove him from flight status in the August 1 memo.
Having spent over 20 years in the computer software industry I wanted to convince myself that in fact one could easily reproduce one of the CBS-posted documents in MS-Word as it has been stated numerously in this forum.
After having done a simple exercise, described below, it’s not entirely clear to me that the documents presented by CBS can be accurately re-created using MS-Word in Times New Roman font. For example, I randomly chose a line from one of the documents and tried to reproduce it in MS-Word.
The first line in the graphic below was extracted from one of the PDF files posted on the CBS website (specifically the Aug 1, 1972 memo http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf)
The second line comes from an MS-Word document I typed using Times New Roman font (8pt) then converted it to PDF
Three key observations:
I’m a Bush supported but I'm not sure that these documents can be accurately reproduced in the ways suggested…
Go forge yourself Dan, and ride out on that donkey you rode in on!
Try doing it in Times New Roman size 12...
I tried the same thing in Word, and not all of the memos map easily in Word. But the CYA memo does map almost exactly in Word, as seen in this animation:
I verified the CYA memo by typing it in Word as well. I had less success on the august 1 memo.
Bump
I always thought they were scheduled on the month of ones birthday. In the case of President Bush, it would be July. Bush's calendar year for racking up annual flight tiem would've begun in the month of May, the month of enlisting.
Odd that dozens of people have been able to do this.
Where's that "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" guy when you need him?
You are also ignoring the effect that a copier making a copy of a copy can have. The misalignment looks more like degeneration of quality rather than a difference in font and / or how it was created.
Great! Sorta makes Baghdad Bob the Pillar of Truthfulness and makes Gilligans Island look like a well run Nation.
Thats because the 1 (one) is really an l (letter L). Very close examination of the CBS forgery reveals the height difference between the letter l (about 5% shorter)and the number 1. This in addition to the spacing variation of st following letter l vs number 1.
MS Word uses proportional font AND kerning with the Times New Roman font. MS Word kerning relies on algorithms regarding adjacent letters, and is apparently not applied to letters adjoining numbers. It may just be that the writer of CBS' document used the letter l in place of the number 1 to avoid the automatic superscript of st following the number 1. This idea is supported by the additional observation that in several other CBS documents, 9921st and 147th have spaces inserted, i.e. 9921 st and 147 th. This appears to be an attempt to avoid MS Word's automatic superscript.
Oh, and whoever's responsible is being bankrolled by Mama T or HRC---can't make up my mind on this point.
The first example uses the number "1" and the second uses the letter "L".
Has anyone tried an overlay with this "trick"?
[I once knew someone who used the "L/1 trick" with Arial font to malevolently "spoof" other people's email addresses.]
Using the letter l instead of the number 1 makes it much, much closer. The only remaining question is the differences in the number four.
The issue isnt whether you can reproduce it in MS-Word.
Actually, it would be difficult to replicate the forgery unless you knew the exact layout preferences of the forger (ie, margin size, kerning, etc.)
However, if it was typed on a typewriter, it would be easliy replicated with that brand/model of the same typewriter, with the same font. If one was accused of a forgery and wished to disprove themselves of the charge, all one would need to do is replicate this result on a typewriter, and damn the "handwriting" "experts".
I dont hear anyone from CBS trying to do this, probably because they know what the result would be.
The PDF file is not the original size. It was reduced. Also if you want to see what it will print like, you have to print the file instead of converting it to a PDF. And if you want to get the old look you have to wrinkle the printed page into a ball and then straighten it out on a dirty copier glass. I have seen it perfectly reproduced before, and I perfectly reproduced it on friday using the above method.
the next step would be to copy my document several times and see if the number fours and capital E' get closer.
I hope Dan Rather saved his blue dress with the stain on it.
It seems clear that the "th" in the "official record" was made using a single special shift-key stroke. Note the little underline on it.
Nowadays we have shift keys such as ~!@#$%^&*{}|. Back then they were different and were often different for varying typefaces. I suspect this "official record" document typeface had single special keys for "th" and "st".
In the Rather document, however, the "th" appears to have been formed from two normal letters specifically superscripted as a modern word-processor would do.
You know, I've been wondering about those 1s. Wasn't sure if it was degradation from multiple copies or what.
We had a typewriter when I was a kid that didn't have a number '1'. You were SUPPOSED to use the lower case 'L' for a '1'. I don't remember, but I think the typewriter was an IBM. Not positive, and no idea whatsoever of the model or year. We had it in the office of the farm I lived on beginning no later than 1978, possibly quite earlier. I would probably be able to recognize it from a picture, though.
I don't know how widespread the absence of a number '1' was, but it might help eliminate models in question if a feature available on a particular typewriter is in a document AND the document has a '1' when it wasn't available on that model. Or vice versa.
Just my two cents. I"m sure someone else is way ahead of me on this, but I hadn't seen it so I thought I'd throw it out there.
I still think the real way to go with this is demand public comparisons of these new memos with the stacks of others from that time and place that should be available...
You know...the most compelling (and damaging) way to prove the case is for someone like yourself (just an example :-), who has accurately reproduced one of the documents to do so LIVE (i.e. like a "demo"), from scratch as part of a news segment. Imagine:
- start with blank document in MS-Word
- type it
- print it
- wrinkle it
- copy it 12 times
- boila! let an expert compare the two
THAT would be devastating - and would show it in a way that the public can more easly understand.
The number four in the "original memo" is degraded because of Xeroxing and .pdf.
Happens all the time. The line on the ascent is obviously damaged.
Finally, the letterspacing and kerning pairs in consistent with MSWord defaults and the font.
"In the Rather document, however, the "th" appears to have been formed from two normal letters specifically superscripted as a modern word-processor would do."
Absolutely. It really appears to NOT be simply a regular 't' and 'h' "bumped up" a half line, though, as they are noticeably smaller than the numerals. (In other words, "specifically superscripted as a modern word-processor would do it", exactly as you said.)
What burns me about Dan's comparison is that it's apples and oranges, yet he calls it "the same superscript".
He thinks we're idiots.
A lot of people won't notice. But things like swarms of us internet types with nothing better to do swarm the problem and can work circles around one of the biggest news organizations on the planet. I don't think these guys really understand what the internet, file-sharing, networked amateurs, and TiVo are doing to their business.
bump
Ignorant question on my part: Why are we having to do the FBI's job? I always thought forgery waws illegal. Help me out here. Why no criminal investigation? I don't believe the 1st Amendment covers intentional lies.
The optics of copiers are not uniform across the whole copy area. Get some graph paper and made a few generations of copies and measure the differences.
Having worked for DOD and typed up fitness reports, memorandum, letters and etc, it is obvious just from a glance that their were mistakes and erasurers and misspellings.
The first two things that caught my eye were:
1. 147th Ftr.Intrcp Gp - should be "147th FTRINTRCPGP (147th Flight Interceptor Group)"
2. "IAW" - "In accordance with" would not have been abbreviated.
3. "Standt" "Staundt" obvious misspelling of name.
Format for the memo is incorrect and NOBODY would ever entitle a memo with CYA (cover your ass).
There are obviously two different typewriters being used. Possibly a Selectric by IBM (the one with the little rotating balls) and maybe a Olivetti
That is HILARIOUS!
First I've heard of the Olivetti. any fonts samples available online?
Don't know.
I sold Olivetti typewriters in that time frame, they had a proportional spacing model but it could not achieve kerning.
Does anyone know if these characteristics are FORCED by M.S. WORD?
thanks for posting the pdf location for ONE of the forgeries...
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf
Does anyone know the URL's for the other THREE?
Take a look at this site. I was trying to find
the provenance of AFM 35-13 using google, and found the
sites below.
They are lefty sites, which refer to the documents
MONTHS ago.
August 2004:
http://www.talkaboutinvestments.com/group/misc.invest.stocks/messages/880901.html
April 2004:
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2004/04/21/who-da-man/
Feb. 2004:
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003279.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3261
Which has this text:
Chris,
Yeah, this aspect of the story may die. But the media has a sense right now that there's stuff in the records that Bush doesn't want people to see, and they'll continue to follow that thread.
This document got posted over at Atrios's site, and it has a couple of interesting things. First of all, there was another guy (James Bath) who got suspended the month after Bush for refusing to take his physical. He's been linked to Bush before, but what interested me was this bit:
"Off[icer] will comply with para 2-1, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13."
Anyone know what this means? I assume it has something to do with the regulations they violated, but googling on the reference (and I also tried assuming that it means Air Force Manual) turned up nothing.
The words This Document are hypertext.
The words linked to Bush are hypertext, and lead to
this site:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html
which contains the text:
Like his father before him, Dubya founded his oil business with the financial backing of investors, including James R. Bath, a Houston businessman whom Dubya apparently first met when they were in the same Texas Air National Guard unit. (Interestingly, both Dubya and Bath were both suspended from flying in August and September 1972, respectively, for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination.")
This is PRE Kerry, PRE election, even PRE 9-11-2001
smearing of Bush...
Could this be why Rather is saying the facts are genuine?
(Can't vouch for the authenticity of the allegations
about Bath. But they sure would make tempting material
for Rather to chance typing up a 'contemporary copy'.
Any thoughts?
Also, any way to save these sites so they don't disappear
down the memory hole?
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.
