PDA

View Full Version : The superscript "th" probably wasn't forged...


jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:32 PM
Just stumbled across this at DU.

It's a document released by Bush campaign in 2000... it has the same superscript "th" (see line 2 "111th")
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif

It's not stratight from the WH website, but if this is the document then the justifications that I've heard around here for forgery are all debunked.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 09:35 PM
Old news, youve got a LOT more problems to deal with now. We have already acknowledged that the th superscript might have been possible, but we now have 3 serious problems.

1) The memos were spaced proportionately, instead of monospace. (not possible)

2) The memos appear to have been typed in "Times New Roman", a highly popular font invented in the 1980's (not possible)

3) The apostrophes are curlicues instead of straight lines. (not possible)

Face it, these are obvious forgeries, CBS news has been had, and ABC news is (rumored) preparing a nice Nightline episode for this.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2004, 09:35 PM
Why only one of them? look at the 5th line..
besides, there are several other reasons to suspect it's a forgery..

jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:39 PM
Old news, youve got a LOT more problems to deal with now. We have already acknowledged that the th superscript might have been possible, but we now have 3 serious problems.

1) The memos were spaced proportionately, instead of monospace. (not possible)
Old news yourself! :p

THis one was debunked 1st thing this morning... even RL will tell you that. IBM had a typewritier in 1966 that used porportional font.
2) The memos appear to have been typed in "Times NEw Roman", a highly popular font invented in the 1980's (not possible)

3) The apostrophes are curlicues instead of straight lines. (not possible)
I'll be curious to see it.

I haven't seen anything about the other two yet, but given that you had an already debunked assertion in #1, I'll assume #2 and #3 are at least still questions rather than facts.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2004, 09:41 PM
The one on the second line could have easily been photoshopped, the rest of the TH's are not superscript..

jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:41 PM
Why only one of them? look at the 5th line..
besides
From what I read, this document is one filled out over time by several different people... possibly using different equipment in different offices... So one keyboard might have the "th" and another might have to type it out.

Or one typist used the "th" and another prefered typing it out.

I'll see what I can find on the ' and font issue that alnorth mentioned.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:42 PM
The one on the second line could have easily been photoshopped, the rest of the TH's are not superscript..
Yeah, anything's possible with photoshop... I'd be curious to see if anyone can find this document from a more official source.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 09:42 PM
It's official! ABC News is now attacking the story!

abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-2.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-2.html)

On top of the problems I listed earlier, ABC News is reporting a new one: The verticle spacing of the memos was measured at 13 point, which was NOT available in any 1970's typewriters, untill the advent of computers.

Braincase
09-09-2004, 09:44 PM
So what you're saying is that the National Guard of 1972 somehow came into ownership of a 2004 computer via time travel...?

WilliamTheIrish
09-09-2004, 09:45 PM
Yeah, anything's possible with photoshop... I'd be curious to see if anyone can find this document from a more official source.

DU isn't an official source?

alnorth
09-09-2004, 09:46 PM
I haven't seen anything about the other two yet, but given that you had an already debunked assertion in #1, I'll assume #2 and #3 are at least still questions rather than facts.

Well you can read them for yourself from that far-right wing wacko biased news site, ABC. :thumb: Take off the blinders, one of your more over-zealous "ABB" comrades decided to commit a felony for Kerry.

Hel'n
09-09-2004, 09:46 PM
Just stumbled across this at DU.

It's a document released by Bush campaign in 2000... it has the same superscript "th" (see line 2 "111th")
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif

It's not stratight from the WH website, but if this is the document then the justifications that I've heard around here for forgery are all debunked.

I don't know about the CBS documents since I didn't catch the show. But the one you show looks right for an IBM Selectric. I used to type on them in high school and college in the 70's and that output looks about right, particularly with the cute little round balls that had the type set on it...

You could have different cute little typesets and just switch them out like I do now with my printer cartridges on my Deskjet. Lift a lever, lift the typeset ball, and replace it with the other one.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:47 PM
2) The memos appear to have been typed in "Times New Roman", a highly popular font invented in the 1980's (not possible)
Found this..... showing it's not TNR.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/foughbaurgh/2.gif

FringeNC
09-09-2004, 09:48 PM
Give it up Jaz. It's so obviously a fake.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 09:49 PM
That would be a good point.... if the lettering of the memos were at all clear. Just look at them with the naked eye, youll see a lot of .... not blurriness, but obvious spots where ink was missing, or too much ink applied.

Because of this, the experts were cautious, suggesting that it was probably Times New Roman, but they couldnt tell for sure because of the poor quality.

Hel'n
09-09-2004, 09:49 PM
http://www.keysan.com/pictures/plex3419.jpg

http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2/selectric/1stack.jpg

;)

jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:49 PM
DU isn't an official source?
I think Bush tried to get a a bill introduced in Congress to make it an "official source", but the Democrats voted it down.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:51 PM
Give it up Jaz. It's so obviously a fake.
Ahhh, a document expert too huh? And a good one... even the ones cited in the Republican Blogs aren't as certain as you are.

I defer to your wisdom.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 09:53 PM
Actually, forget that arguement.

Jaz, fire up microsoft Word yourself, type the letter two, and raise the font really high (like 72 point) so you can see it clearly.

One of your DU buddies fiddled around with that "Times New Roman" 2, so that it looks nothing like actual Times New Roman.

I agree that your example doesnt match, but MY example on MY MS Word program is a close match. Your example does nothing but discredit whoever posted it.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 09:56 PM
Also, ignore the example supposedly saying it was from the memo, and pull up an image of the memo itself. The 2 on the actual memo images do NOT look like that big fat 2 you have, they look like my times new roman two.

(When I said it was a close match, i was looking at the memo, not your blurry (and false) example.)

(Added)

Go here: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

And look at the 2 in the date (04 May 1972)

That sure as hell looks like Times New Roman to me, and NOT like your crazy example with that big fat bold and blunted two

FringeNC
09-09-2004, 09:56 PM
Ahhh, a document expert too huh? And a good one... even the ones cited in the Republican Blogs aren't as certain as you are.

I defer to your wisdom.

Go to Powerlineblog.com and look at a real document signed by the guy, and look at this one. It's so obviously bogus.

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2004, 09:57 PM
In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes:

Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.

But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal, citing Peter Nuss, points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.


ROFL ROFL

jAZ
09-09-2004, 09:59 PM
Actually, forget that arguement.

Jaz, fire up microsoft Word yourself, type the letter two, and raise the font really high (like 72 point) so you can see it clearly.

One of your DU buddies fiddled around with that "Times New Roman" 2, so that it looks nothing like actual Times New Roman.

I agree that your example doesnt match, but MY example on MY MS Word program is a close match. Your example does nothing but discredit whoever posted it.
I tried that, but I would say it Word doesn't match either one.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:01 PM
In the August 18, 1973 memo "discovered" by 60 Minutes, Jerry Killian purportedly writes:

Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.

But wait! Reader Amar Sarwal, citing Peter Nuss, points out that General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.


ROFL ROFL
Did he die in 1972 or just retire? Cause a retirement doesn't prevent someone from putting pressure on someone.

I understand the point, but it doesn't really refute the words.

FringeNC
09-09-2004, 10:02 PM
Here's the fake:

FringeNC
09-09-2004, 10:02 PM
Here's a real one:

alnorth
09-09-2004, 10:03 PM
I tried that, but I would say it Word doesn't match either one.

Forget your false example, and look at the actual memo. Look for the twos, they dont look like your example, but they do look pretty close to Times New Roman

Joe Seahawk
09-09-2004, 10:06 PM
From Powerline..

Please allow me to introduce myself: I am --- . I retired from the Air National Guard just over a week ago, after serving 34 and one-half years in a variety of enlisted and commissioned officer capacities. I enlisted in the Air National Guard in February 1970, and was trained as an Administrative Specialist. I served in that capacity as an enlisted member (Staff Sergeant) for just over 3 years, during which time I personally typed hundreds upon hundreds of letters in official U.S. Air Force format. I was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in August 1973, whereupon I served the remaining 31 years of my ANG career as an administrative officer, personnel and training officer, services officer, and squadron and group commander of support units. During the period of 1974 to 1977, I also served on active duty as an officer instructor at the ANG Professional Military Education Center and Academy of Military Science, the ANG school responsible for training and commissioning new ANG officers. One of my duties was to teach the preparation and proper composition of Air Force correspondence. I give you this background to establish my credibility in matters concerning Air Force letters and official documents.
After researching a number of web sites on the internet to gain as much information as possible concerning the recently "discovered" Texas Air National Guard documents that relate to (then) Lieutenant George Bush, I located and printed two specific documents - one which I consider genuine, and another that is completely bogus and an obvious forgery.

The first letter, which I am convinced is genuine, is dated 5 Sep 73, and is Lieutenant Bush's request to be discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and subsequently transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC). This particular letter was obviously typed on a typewriter, and followed the prescribed Air Force formatting standards in place at that time. Specifically, the first three lines of the letter were in the appropriate format: "FROM:" on the first line; "SUBJECT:" on the second line; and "TO:" on the third line. All abbreviations were correctly formatted as well as military rank and title. The endorsement of the 111 FIS commander (Lt Col Killian) was in the correct format, as was his two-line signature element that was left justified.

The second letter, which I believe is being used to establish the premise that Lieutenant Bush either refused or failed to report for a flight physical, is bogus not only because of the proportional font, superscript, and Times New Roman font style (as mentioned in several internet sites and on selected media outlets), but more specifically because of the egregious formatting problems I will now list.

1. The format used in this letter, dated 04 May 1972, which was
allegedly prepared/published 16 months prior to Lieutenant Bush's request for discharge, is completely wrong, as the letter is formatted in a manner that was not used by the Air Force until the very late 1980's/early 1990's.

2. The terminology "MEMORANDUM FOR" was never used in the 1970's.

3. The abbreviations in this letter are incorrectly formatted, in that a period is used after military rank (1st Lt.). According to the Air Force style manual, periods are not used in military rank abbreviations.

4. The abbreviation for Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) includes periods after each capital letter. Again, periods are not used.

5. In paragraph 1, the phrase "not later than" is spelled out, followed by (NLT). NLT was, and is, a widely recognized abbreviation for "not later than" throughout all military services, so the inclusion of "not later than" was not a generally accepted practice and completely unnecessary in a letter from one military member to another.

6. Lt Col Killian's signature element is incorrect for letters prepared in the 1970's. This letter uses a three-line signature element, which was normally not used. Three-line signature elements were almost the exclusive domain of colonels and generals in organizations well above the squadron level.

7. Finally, the signature element is placed far to the right, instead of being left justified. The placement of the signature element to the right was not used or directed by Air Force standards until almost 20 years after the date of this letter.

In summary, I believe the letter used to impugn Lieutenant Bush is an obvious fabrication, prepared on a modern word-processing system by an unscrupulous individual who erroneously used current Air Force formatting protocol instead of the standard letter format directed by Air Force manuals of the 1970's. Therefore, the letter ordering Lieutenant Bush to report for a flight physical should be discounted in its entirety.

Please feel free to use the facts listed above in any of your web sites if you feel this information is valid and relevant (and I attest to the fact that it is); however, please refrain from using my rank and name.

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:08 PM
I *think* this is Typed, Word, Quark in decending order...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/foughbaurgh/harris.gif

jAZ
09-09-2004, 10:09 PM
Forget your false example, and look at the actual memo. Look for the twos, they dont look like your example, but they do look pretty close to Times New Roman
Yeah, I asked the guy what this example was.. .maybe I didn't understand his point.

I'll let you know... I did find the one above, which looks more like the actual document.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 10:21 PM
Really though the font is hard to tell for sure, because its not clear.

To me, the apostrophes were damning. If everything else is refuted (no one's touched vertical spacing yet, 13 point wasnt done back then), you still cant explain why the hell we have curlicues here instead of straight lines.

alnorth
09-09-2004, 10:22 PM
The questions and speculation is beginning to fly now.

From ABC News:

The White House is declining to comment on the veracity of the documents. Many Democrats are worried that if they are found to be forgeries, it will be a setback for Sen. John Kerry's campaign to defeat Bush in November.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2004, 10:41 PM
I don't know about the CBS documents since I didn't catch the show. But the one you show looks right for an IBM Selectric. I used to type on them in high school and college in the 70's and that output looks about right, particularly with the cute little round balls that had the type set on it...

You could have different cute little typesets and just switch them out like I do now with my printer cartridges on my Deskjet. Lift a lever, lift the typeset ball, and replace it with the other one.


I had one of the blue selectrics...but I can't find on the selectric museum site or any other site examples of the th on the 88 or 96 standard typeset ball. I read earlier that they would make custom balls that included characters like this, but it was very expensive.

Doesn't address the other problems with the documents. Nor does it address the author's wife and son saying that they're fake. Or that a bunch of document experts and forensic experts are saying their fake over at ABC and at the Washington Post. Or the fact that the General who was supposedly applying the pressure was retired a year before he supposedly was applying the pressure. Etc., etc., etc.

But I guess if you want to rely on DU as your source for news then that's OK too...

RINGLEADER
09-09-2004, 10:45 PM
Hey, at this point, the document and the issue are neutralized...

alnorth
09-09-2004, 10:47 PM
Its more than neutralized. I never thought Bush could actually benefit on this, but with the whole forgery thing, conventional wisdom is dead. This could turn into a HUGE scandel for Kerry, whether deserved or not.

Best case scenario for Kerry at this point is the voters dont care and nothing happens.

Worst case: bar the doors...

trndobrd
09-10-2004, 05:54 AM
In other news....Job numbers are up.

Have a good time with the superscripts.