Posted on 09/16/2004 8:42:55 PM PDT by JRD869
I have made a discovery this evening related to the 04 May 1972 memo that deserves scrutiny, not previously discussed (as far as I've seen).
Having been a professional office machine diagnostic specialist (ok, copier tech, for you dittoheads that will inevitably deluge my mailbox with hate mail) for the last 15 years, an expert in diagnosis, and being well experienced in the capabilities of copies vs. originals, I build my argument as follows:
1. Multiple generation photocopies 'will' result in distortion of the text, both in resolution, and in size, making an overlay impossible to match without significant 'fussing'. This distorts reliable results. Sorry.
2. Multiple generation photocopies 'will' result in progressive loss of resolution...ie., a 'square' pixel will become rounded, and a 'black' area (text, or otherwise) will become 'blacker', and possibly degraded, depending on density/exposure settings.
3. Even the 1st generation 'photocopy' (or scan) is not an accuate representation of the original.
Thus, I ask viewers to go to CBS' site here http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf and PRINT the aforementioned memo.
Please note that on-screen you cannot view the text under the redaction. It appears to authenticate the origin of the documents in 'blacking out' personal data.
Note on the PRINT how it is possible to view the address under the redaction. (even I failed to even consider printing the memo until just tonight)
Now go here to CBS latest statement on the 'memogate' http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
Observe the statement "As CBS News has publicly stated, the documents used in the report were photocopies of originals."
All of CBS' 'experts' attest to viewing 'copies'.
In order for CBS to have produced PDF documents, 'originals' (pure definition) on paper must be utilized, UNLESS CBS was provided 'digital copies' (not noted anywhere).
The only possible way for CBS to produce a PDF scan whereas the redaction can be read, is as a result of a high-resolution scan of....AN ORIGINAL! (referring STRICTLY to the redaction graphic) I assume others before (like myself) assumed (incorrectly) that TANG redacted the memo. That is inherently not possible, being that these documents are clearly stated as having been acquired 'other than FOIA', and it is also clearly stated that these documents were acquired by a 'source with access to Killian's personal files'.
It is absolutely impossible for the redaction to have occurred at any point prior to the very latest generation of photocopy. This is very obvious given that the 'original' is a 'multiple generation' (at least 2nd generation, imho) photocopy, NOT a printed OR typed original.
Therefore, the following questions arise:
1. If the document was in fact, as CBS maintains, obtained from Killian's 'personal memos', we can conclude that the ORIGINAL (typed) was in Killian's file (who makes personal copies of personal memos?)
2. If the ORIGINAL (typed) memo was in Killian's personal files, and Killian's personal files were in fact obtained by CBS' 'source', what possible reason is there to produce a 'multiple generation photocopy' to a major news organization in the interest of 'truth'?
3. If CBS obtained a 'photocopy' of Killian's personal file memo (again, should have been originals in his file), why would CBS redact their own copy, an address from 1972? and finally...
4. Why won't CBS obtain the original to dispell all doubts about the memo's authenticity?
Yes, I see all the obvious answers, but I wish not to become part of the conspiracy thread. I am simply stating observed aspects of these documents and the circumstances that seem to have gotten lost in the 'forgery' discussion (still a very real, and exciting, possibility). I simply maintain that the overwhelming majority of threads on the subject have been misled by errors of analysis...the conclusions may all be true, no matter the path.
For example...some major inconsistencies in the cBS version of the story:
1. I am not even going to begin to cover the aspect that the so-called 'order to report' is not a properly formatted 'order'.
2. We've covered in ad nauseum the nature of the required date of examination (birthday).
3. The signatures? Been there, done that. NOT Killian's.
On the other hand, contrary to 'rebuttal' theories:
1. It also has already been reported that the address on the so-called letterhead is, in fact, the same address on other TANG forms released previously (not a fake address).
2. Also (sorry electronic document theorists), there are too many 'discrepancies' on this 'photocopy' to explain that it 'was not typed'. In my humble opinion, it WAS typed. Anybody reading this post can go acquire an IBM Selectric typewriter or the like 2nd hand. Why nobody has published a possible typed 'copy' is beyond me. For example, the 2nd 'M' in Memorandum is slightly askew. This could be explained by a damaged platen roller, causing the impact of the type to 'indent' the paper, and distort the letter. the 'a' in 'Examination' and 'administrative' are slightly above the baseline. The 'a' in 'May' is also distorted between two undistorted letters. That cannot be reproduced electronically, but is a 'tell' of a poorly maintained, worn-out electronic typewriter. All of these 'defects' are detectable, and correctable, by a qualified repair specialist. These are also identifying characteristics of the author's typewriter (I hear a typewriter being tossed into a body of water somewhere...)
3. The famous superscript...it is too high above the baseline to be electronic (at least on my PC and in MS Word). I believe it to be a superscript key.
Don't get me wrong...I have already downloaded 'typewriter fonts' and performed a very good forgery copy of the memo myself. I believe a few hours in Photoshop can even produce the aforementioned 'defects' in type.
It appears to this poster that CBS has conveniently acquired the sole documents it has sought since about 1999, fulfilling all of it's allegations from it's assembled circle of witnesses and testimonials (ignoring rebuttal examinations even from within its own organization), that also conveniently shield it from persecution for improper military record retrieval (Privacy Act violation) in having nailed Killian's 'personal files' (these files are suggested, in DOJ publications, to have no 'personal identifier', ie. filed under GWB's personnel file, and therefore do not warrant persecution under violation of Privacy Act for not having been acquired under FOIA). In not having 'originals' to merit further scrutiny, they also conveniently evade peer review by either other organizations, or by other experts, to either refute or CONFIRM their allegations.
I apologize if this thread ran long, but it is in the best interest of all that this matter gets analyzed objectively. Some interviews reported even by Fox may have been in error by jumping on the MS Word hypothesis. It is very easy to be misled by perceptions of truth...it is, in fact, very hard to ascertain accurate diagnosis of symptoms and circumstances even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In fact, how many missed the anagram of Dan's name contained in this thread?
One last thing (redux): CBS has an 'expert' attest to the authenticity of the so-called 'Killian signatures'. Any moron with 20/20 vision can see the very obvious attempts at forgery of a known signture. Other experts have already refuted these claims. (I needed to restate the obvious, despite the lack of originals.)
CBS and Dan Rather need to get their story straight. They are backpeddling already, and predictably CYA is in motion.
The question remains...
When will CBS come clean with either the source or the originals and settle this for all???
I think what may have happened, is that CBS got a faxed copy. They redacted the portion in question with a magic marker, then scanned it into a PDF.
I see you've read your talking points today. Think about this: The probability of a reprint using the default settings of Microsoft Word matching memos produced in 1972 with the same line spacing (meaning the typist would have had to hit return at the same place Word automatically wraps the text) is so infinitesimmaly small as to be zero.
Interesting observations
This "redaction" issue was noted the first day. That's where people got the address they were testing for validity.
Basically the way it would have to happen was if the marker was laid down only in the last copy or two (with a high quality scanner) with gray-scale. Certainly not early-on.
Post your typed sample that matches any of the memos. Thanks.
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
Correction: 9/17/04
One of the document experts tried, but was unable to make it look like the CBS memos.
I assume, though, that CBS redacted the address (btw, Bush was not living at that Longmont address when this fake memo was supposedly written, another sign of forgery) so that people wouldn't show up there to visit. But it was unnecessary, since the White House released docs contain the same address unredacted.
Have you considered the possibility that thousands of Kerry supporters have tried already? Maybe they haven't been able to reproduce the spacing of the characters on the forgeries because they weren't made on a typewriter.
They have. Not even close with a Selectric. Major discrepancies with a Selectric Composer, and even at that required changing out type-balls and other odd behaviours to get close.
Bump and save for future reference
Nice work, mR Not quite a member yet.
You've made photocopies, right?
I bet you're right. The memos were typed, and just to vex later generations the typist followed the word processing format Microsoft was going to invent in the future.
Exactly. Time after time, the simplist solution is usually the answer. The simple answer is "Microsoft Word." End of story.
Not that I believe her, but 1) she states he showed up every weekend so he wasn't AWOL while in TX, but 2) it's curious she can recall with such details an Average Joe from 30+ years ago.
As I posted the other day (which, for some reason, provoked the immediate ire of someone who had the post relegated to another thread) why isn't anybody pointing out one of the most, if not the most, obvious issue?
First, most of you have heard by now that a handwriting expert cannot authenticate a photocopy. But we also keep hearing how CBS's handwriting expert "authenticated" Killian's signature. How can that be, you ask?
Well, he didn't. The most he could have done would be to say the signatures were consistent. That's not the same thing as authenticating. There's a simple reason for this--on a photo copy the signature can be genuine but fraudulent (in fact, most forgeries these days probably are that way). The way it is done is by taking a photo or scan of a real signature and cutting and pasting it, physically or digitally, onto the forged document. It is easy, and very hard to disprove if done correctly. Photocopied signatures, therefore, cannot be independently authenticated. Someone who produced or received the original would have to authenticate it.
But here's the point I'm getting at: one of these cut-and-paste jobs was not done very well. For those of you playing along at home, look at the 01 August 1972 memo purporting to suspend Lt. Bush from flight status. The signature on that memo is a scribbled set of initials above a (fishy) signature block. You will notice the loop of the last initial is cut off at the top where the lines begin to curve toward one another. And I mean cut off straight across, to where even the edges of the lines are themselves perfectly straight across this invisible line. This is probably because the person apparently cut across the writing to avoid carrying along some text. Regardless of why it turned out that way, this was probably scanned and pasted because it is superimposed over the signature block to give it an air of authenticity ("how could someone past a signature over the type?" they hoped people would ask). The problem is, they did not pay attention to the top. You cannot stop lines that way when writing. Lines tail off as you lift the pen, they don't come to a straight edge, and this is clearly a loop the has the top part missing.
I can't believe people are not even mentioning this. It was the first thing that jumped out at me. I've dealt with cut-and-paste forgeries before, and they're rather common.
Add this to the growing stack of overwhelming evidence.
Welcome to Free Republic.... Since it is so easy to replicate these docs using a typewriter, you can hit the jackpot.
I believe that there is some very big money to be made for the first person to recreate the memos using 1972 office technology.. if you don't have the typewriter, you can pick one up on ebay.
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.