PDA

View Full Version : Drudge: KEY CHALLENGES TO NATIONAL GUARD DOCUMENTS ANSWERED


Taco John
09-10-2004, 11:57 PM
Doh!



'KEY CHALLENGES TO NATIONAL GUARD DOCUMENTS ANSWERED'
Fri Sep 10 2004 19:03:11 ET

The biggest challenges to the authenticity of the documents featured in the 60 MINUTES segment on President Bush's Texas National Guard service are answered in a report to be broadcast on the CBS EVENING NEWS tonight (6:30-7:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. The report states that the type style, typewriter and the superscript function critics claim did not exist at the time the memos from President Bush's former Texas National Guard commander were typed were indeed all available. In fact, similar raised "th" superscripts have been found on other National Guard documents the White House has released from the president's file.

Furthermore, Marcel Mately, the document and handwriting expert used to authenticate the documents for CBS News and 60 MINUTES, asserts that copies of the memos critics are examining have been degraded by reproduction though photocopying, computer scanning and faxing and are not reliable representations of the memos.

A transcript is attached:

BUSH DOCUMENTS

EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER

9-10-04

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?

--Did Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer?

--Was Lieutenant. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to standards?

--Did Lieutenant Bush ever take a physical he was required and ordered to take? If not, why not?

--And did Lieutenant Bush, in fact, complete his commitment to the Guard?

These questions grew out of new witnesses and new evidence -- including documents written by Lieutenant Bush's squadron commander.

Today, on the internet and elsewhere, some people -- including many who are partisan political operatives -- concentrated not on the key questions the overall story raised but on the documents that were part of the support of the story.

They alleged the documents are FAKE.

Rather: MANY OF THOSE RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CBS DOCUMENTS HAVE FOCUSED ON SOMETHING CALLED SUPERSCRIPT... A KEY THAT AUTOMATICALLY TYPES A RAISED "TH". CRITICS CLAIM TYPEWRITERS DIDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY IN THE 70S. BUT SOME MODELS DID....IN FACT, OTHER BUSH MILITARY RECORDS ALREADY OFFICIALLY RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF SHOW THE SAME SUPERSCRIPT.

HERE'S ONE..... FROM 1968.

SOME ANALYSTS OUTSIDE CBS SAY THEY BELIEVE THE TYPEFACE ON THESE MEMOS IS NEW TIMES ROMAN.... WHICH THEY CLAIM WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE 1970S.

BUT THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY THAT DISTRIBUTES THIS TYPING STYLE.... SAYS IT HAS BEEN AVAILABE SINCE 1931. DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTS FOR CBS NEWS.

HE SAYS HE BELIEVES THEY ARE REAL...BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE QUESTIONING THE DOCUMENTS....BECAUSE DETIORATION OCCURS EACH TIME A DOCUMENT IS REPRODUCED.....AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVEBEEN PHOTOCOPIED, FAXED, SCANNED AND DOWNLOADED.... AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES.

DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY DID THIS INTERVIEW WITH US PRIOR TO THE 60 MINUTES BROADCAST.

HE LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SIGNATURES OF COLONEL JERRY KILLIAN.... COMPARING KNOWN DOCUMENTS WITH THE COLONEL'S SIGNATURE ON THE NEWSLY DISCOVERED ONES.

Matley: "WE LOOK BASICALLY AT WHAT'S CALLED SIGNIFICANT OR INSIGNIFICANT FEATURES TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE SAME PERSON OR NOT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM IDENTIFYING THEM.

I WOULD SAY BASED ON OUR AVAILABLE HANDWRITING EVIDENCE, YES. THIS IS THE SAME PERSON."

Rather: MATLEY FINDS THE SIGNAT'URES TO BE SOME OF THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE...WE TALKED TO HIM AGAIN TODAY BY SATELLITE.

Matley "SINCE IT IS REPRESENTED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE DEFINITELY HIS... THEN WE CAN CONCLUDE THEY ARE HIS SIGNATURES."

Rather: "ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT QUESTIONS COME ABOUT THESE. WE'RE NOT, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU'RE SURPRISED."

Matley: "I KNEW GOING IN THAT THIS WAS DYNAMITE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND I KNEW THAT POTENTIALLY IT WAS FAR MORE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ME PROFESSIONALLY THAN BENEFIT ME. AND I KNEW THAT. BUT WE SEEK THE TRUTH. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT YOURSELF OUT. TO SEEK THE TRUTH AND TAKE WHAT COMES FROM IT."

Rather: ROBERT STRONG WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD DURING THE VIETNAM YEARS. HE KNEW COL. JERRY KILLIAN, THE MAN CREDITED WITH WRITING THE DOCUMENTS.... AND PAPER WORK... LIKE THESE DOCUMENTS...WAS HIS SPECIALTY. HE IS STANDING BY HIS JUDGEMENT THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE REAL.

Rather: "WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS, IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT THESE ARE GENUINE?"

Strong: "WELL,, THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WAY BUSINESS WAS DONE AT THAT TIME. THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAN THAT I REMEMBER JERRY KILLIAN BEING. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT'S DISCORDANT WITH WHAT WERE THE TIMES, WHAT WERE THE SITUATION OR WHAT WERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED."

Rather: STRONG SAYS THE HIGHLY CHARGED POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE GUARD AT THE TIME... WAS PERFECTLY REPRESENTED IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS

Strong: "IT VERGED ON OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION IN TERMS OF THE FAVORS THAT WERE DONE, THE POWER THAT WAS TRADED. AND IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE. FROM A MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDPOINT. IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE."

Rather: IT IS THE INFORMATION IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS THAT IS MOST COMPELLING FOR PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. AUTHOR JIM MORE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT.

Rather: "YOU'VE STUDIED PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORDS FOR 10 YEARS.. ARE THESE DOCUMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD AS YOU KNOW IT?"

Moore: "THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORDS AS I KNOW IT."

Rather: "PUT IT IN CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE FOR US ... THE STORY AND WHAT WE CALL THE COUNTERATTACK ON THE STORY. WHERE ARE WE RIGHT NOW?

Moore "I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAVE COME OUT. THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU SHOULD REMEMBER, HAS NOT DISCREDITED THE DOCUMENTS. THEY'RE RELYING ON THE BLOGOSPHERE AND OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THAT. BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE PROBABLY KNOWS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE IN FACT REAL."

Rather Tag: The "60 Minutes" report was based NOT solely on the recovered documents .. but on a preponderance of evidence .. including documents that were provided by un-impeachable sources .. and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it.

So far, there is none.

Taco John
09-10-2004, 11:58 PM
Come on. Let's just all admit that we know Bush received preferential treatment his whole life and be done with this whole drama.

Ugly Duck
09-11-2004, 12:06 AM
Doh!

The "60 Minutes" report was based NOT solely on the recovered documents .. but on a preponderance of evidence .. including documents that were provided by un-impeachable sources .. and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it.

So far, there is none.
It don't matter none. The BushCo supporters are so used to lies that they can't tell the difference anymore. They choose to believe that the records are forgeries and nothing will sway that opinion. They choose to believe that Sodom was just about to mushroom cloud us with transcontinental drones. They choose to believe that Kerry does not want our troops wearing body armor. If BushCo sez it, they just choose to believe it whatever the facts may be.

Joe Seahawk
09-11-2004, 12:09 AM
It don't matter none. The BushCo supporters are so used to lies that they can't tell the difference anymore. They choose to believe that the records are forgeries and nothing will sway that opinion. They choose to believe that Sodom was just about to mushroom cloud us with transcontinental drones. They choose to believe that Kerry does not want our troops wearing body armor. If BushCo sez it, they just choose to believe it whatever the facts may be.

Will a dem ever admit the obvious?

MS Word document overlaid on the CBS News “original,” in an animated GIF alternating between the two:





http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug181973-overlay.gif

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:11 AM
Link?

CBS, I presume? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:15 AM
Come on. Let's just all admit that we know Bush received preferential treatment his whole life and be done with this whole drama.

ALL rich people receive "preferential treatment" their whole life...including John Kerry.

The point is did Bush, as CBS alleges, lie and attempt to deceive us about his record...

If the documents are forgeries, as the Army, the Washington Post, AP, and a host of other non-CBS media outlets are suggesting, then that contention has not been proven. And there is testimony and evidence a plenty to suggest Bush's version of events are AT LEAST as believable as the ones being fabricated by his critics....

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:20 AM
Seriously. Are you on drugs?

Did you READ the drudge link? :shake:

The story is about CBS, answering the charges against them; it is NOT, as you are suggesting, a resolution of critic's charges by independent sources.... :rolleyes:

Of course, you know that all ready.... :banghead:

Ugly Duck
09-11-2004, 12:22 AM
The point is did Bush, as CBS alleges, lie and attempt to deceive us about his record...Well i'll be durned... maybe some of you folks are more open minded than I thought! Thats a good start, dude - go with it!

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:24 AM
Well i'll be durned... maybe some of you folks are more open minded than I thought! Thats a good start, dude - go with it!

Do you have credible proof that he did? If so, I'd like to see it...

but be forewarned, 60 minutes and Dan Rather's credibility has been destroyed at this point.... :)

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:40 AM
Will a dem ever admit the obvious?

MS Word document overlaid on the CBS News “original,” in an animated GIF alternating between the two:





http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug181973-overlay.gif


Uh, so?

I could do the same with any 1970's document I'd wager.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:42 AM
The point is did Bush, as CBS alleges, lie and attempt to deceive us about his record...




Well yeah... That's old news. When asked on a form if he was ever arrested, he said no and signed his name on the line...

Joe Seahawk
09-11-2004, 12:50 AM
Uh, so?

I could do the same with any 1970's document I'd wager.

If you open word and type out the memo in the default settings it matches exact.. try it, and read this.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Phobia
09-11-2004, 12:52 AM
I think that the point CBS is trying to make to the American public is that every scumsucking politician will lie his pants off in order to spin any potentially negative story that could be used against him.

I'd have a whole lot more respect for a politician that just responded truthfully, with direct answers to every question. I'm sick of the half answers, misdirections, and complete evasions of questions.

How 'bout: "Yes, I did some stupid shit when I was younger. Who amongst us hasn't? That's in the past and my judgement and reasoning has improved significantly since then."

You can't trust anything on any of the networks, out of the White House, nor print media. They're all covering their asses and lying to push their own ****ing agenda. Thomas Jefferson would have been burned at the stake if CBS, ABC, ESPN, and the NYTimes had been around back in the early 1800's.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:56 AM
I think that the point CBS is trying to make to the American public is that every scumsucking politician will lie his pants off in order to spin any potentially negative story that could be used against him.

I'd have a whole lot more respect for a politician that just responded truthfully, with direct answers to every question. I'm sick of the half answers, misdirections, and complete evasions of questions.

How 'bout: "Yes, I did some stupid shit when I was younger. Who amongst us hasn't? That's in the past and my judgement and reasoning has improved significantly since then."

You can't trust anything on any of the networks, out of the White House, nor print media. They're all covering their asses and lying to push their own ****ing agenda. Thomas Jefferson would have been burned at the stake if CBS, ABC, ESPN, and the NYTimes had been around back in the early 1800's.



:clap:

Levity. That's rare in this forum.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 01:02 AM
To wit, I blasted Kerry over his medals over the fence fracas. I thought his wishy washy protest was incredibly weak, and his explanation afterward was pretty flimsy. I think he should have just been honest and said "hell yeah I did that. I was pissed off at the senseless deaths of my friends and the people in my generation. What did we get out of that war that so many had to die?"

Though, I suppose Bush couldn't come out and, "Sure I took advantage of the opportunity my father's position provided me. He did what any father would do, and like anyone at the time, I didn't want to risk my life."

I still believe that domestic issues are what is going to budge the swing voters in one direction or the other. This whole military service thing is just a lesson in muck raking...

Joe Seahawk
09-11-2004, 01:07 AM
To wit, I blasted Kerry over his medals over the fence fracas. I thought his wishy washy protest was incredibly weak, and his explanation afterward was pretty flimsy. I think he should have just been honest and said "hell yeah I did that. I was pissed off at the senseless deaths of my friends and the people in my generation. What did we get out of that war that so many had to die?"

Though, I suppose Bush couldn't come out and, "Sure I took advantage of the opportunity my father's position provided me. He did what any father would do, and like anyone at the time, I didn't want to risk my life."

I still believe that domestic issues are what is going to budge the swing voters in one direction or the other. This whole military service thing is just a lesson in muck raking...

:clap: gotta agree with that one..

OldTownChief
09-11-2004, 01:29 AM
I think that the point CBS is trying to make to the American public is that every scumsucking politician will lie his pants off in order to spin any potentially negative story that could be used against him.

I'd have a whole lot more respect for a politician that just responded truthfully, with direct answers to every question. I'm sick of the half answers, misdirections, and complete evasions of questions.

How 'bout: "Yes, I did some stupid shit when I was younger. Who amongst us hasn't? That's in the past and my judgement and reasoning has improved significantly since then."

You can't trust anything on any of the networks, out of the White House, nor print media. They're all covering their asses and lying to push their own ****ing agenda. Thomas Jefferson would have been burned at the stake if CBS, ABC, ESPN, and the NYTimes had been around back in the early 1800's.

Very good point but, that is not even close to the point that CBS is trying to make to the American public.

BigOlChiefsfan
09-11-2004, 05:20 AM
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/special_packages/election2004/9633814.htm


Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written

BY PETE SLOVER

The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Bush's service, was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

That added to mounting questions about the authenticity of documents that seem to suggest Bush sought special favors and did not fulfill his service (snip)


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html

Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."


Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been "computer generated" and are a "fraud".

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 06:14 AM
Rather: ROBERT STRONG WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD DURING THE VIETNAM YEARS. HE KNEW COL. JERRY KILLIAN, THE MAN CREDITED WITH WRITING THE DOCUMENTS.... AND PAPER WORK... LIKE THESE DOCUMENTS...WAS HIS SPECIALTY. HE IS STANDING BY HIS JUDGEMENT THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE REAL.
OK, Rather has characterized Strong's position, let's see if it stands up.

Rather: "WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS, IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT THESE ARE GENUINE?"
Ah, yes, the question du jour. Here comes the meat.

Strong: "WELL,, THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WAY BUSINESS WAS DONE AT THAT TIME. THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAN THAT I REMEMBER JERRY KILLIAN BEING. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT'S DISCORDANT WITH WHAT WERE THE TIMES, WHAT WERE THE SITUATION OR WHAT WERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED."
Translation: "At best, I have no idea. At worst, no, absolutely not."

Rather: STRONG SAYS THE HIGHLY CHARGED POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE GUARD AT THE TIME... WAS PERFECTLY REPRESENTED IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS
Translation: This guys isn't gonna help me, best to move on the imagery conjured by my fiction.

Strong: "IT VERGED ON OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION IN TERMS OF THE FAVORS THAT WERE DONE, THE POWER THAT WAS TRADED. AND IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE. FROM A MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDPOINT. IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE."

Rather: IT IS THE INFORMATION IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS THAT IS MOST COMPELLING FOR PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. AUTHOR JIM MORE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT.

Rather: "YOU'VE STUDIED PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORDS FOR 10 YEARS.. ARE THESE DOCUMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD AS YOU KNOW IT?"
Tanslation: the last guy burned my ass when I asked him the 'G' word. [Who the f@ck am I kidding? No one thinks they are genuine.] Better stick to 'consistent' and get back the fiction based imagery thing.

Moore: "THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORDS AS I KNOW IT."
Rather: Whew!!!

headsnap
09-11-2004, 06:15 AM
Uh, so?

I could do the same with any 1970's document I'd wager.
I'll take you up on that, how much do you want to wager? You would have to do it in MS Word, and have it match exactly.

it's not as easy as it looks and downright impossible in a program as inflexible as M$ Word. It would take a sh!tload of time and programs like Freehand or Illustrator to do that.


so Taco, how much do you want to bet?

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 06:17 AM
Thomas Jefferson would have been burned at the stake if CBS, ABC, ESPN, and the NYTimes had been around back in the early 1800's.
F@cking your slave women could do that to you.

jcl-kcfan2
09-11-2004, 07:22 AM
I'll take you up on that, how much do you want to wager? You would have to do it in MS Word, and have it match exactly.

it's not as easy as it looks and downright impossible in a program as inflexible as M$ Word. It would take a sh!tload of time and programs like Freehand or Illustrator to do that.


so Taco, how much do you want to bet?


The gauntlet has been thrown down.

You made a very exact claim, now back it or leave...

Are you man enough?

Patriot 21
09-11-2004, 07:28 AM
The gauntlet has been thrown down.

You made a very exact claim, now back it or leave...

Are you man enough?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Won't never happen.

Cochise
09-11-2004, 07:32 AM
Is this the guy who CBS used to 'authenticate' the Vince Foster suicide note? Was mentioned on tv last night but I only heard it in passing, was in the other room at the time.

FringeNC
09-11-2004, 07:40 AM
TJ has gone off the deep end. It was Dan Rather in a very unsteady and hoarse voice claiming he was not lying. He did not address even a tenth of the problems. There is absolutely NO WAY those documents are legit.

KCWolfman
09-11-2004, 07:48 AM
When is CBS going to tell us who authenticated the document itself. And please, whomever answers, don't be stupid and say that is what Matley is doing - he supposedly authenticated a signature from the analysis of a few letters. He did not authenticate the document.

KCWolfman
09-11-2004, 07:50 AM
AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVEBEEN PHOTOCOPIED

So copies are not subject to correct analysis?.................... unless you are CBS as they admit they do not have the originals?

FringeNC
09-11-2004, 08:03 AM
Read this:

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

WilliamTheIrish
09-11-2004, 08:24 AM
This has gone from pathetic to sublime. What a completely f#cked campaign from both sides.

Dan Rather, the guy who has been #3 out of a possible 3 in ratings for the past ... oh... decade, gets these docs from Carville/Begalla to boost CBS Evening News ratings.

jAZ
09-11-2004, 09:42 AM
Uh, so?

I could do the same with any 1970's document I'd wager.
That's what they are down to... holding desperately to the notion that they are fake... to the point ignoring even the most obvious.

Isn't the point of having standards fonts so that you can have a uniform typeset? And if you use the same font and spacing, you should be able to reproduce most any typical document from the past that was created using standard fonts at the time?

Joe Seahawk
09-11-2004, 09:47 AM
That's what they are down to... holding desperately to the notion that they are fake... to the point ignoring even the most obvious.

Isn't the point of having standards fonts so that you can have a uniform typeset? And if you use the same font and spacing, you should be able to reproduce most any typical document from the past that was created using standard fonts at the time?

Try this at home Jaz.. Type out the memo in word defaults, and overlay it on a copy of the "real" memo here is what you get. this is alternating gif image that changes back and forth from a home created doc and the CBS doc

This is simply not just coincidence..You are the one overlooking the obvious my friend..


http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug181973-overlay.gif

jAZ
09-11-2004, 09:51 AM
Try this at home Jaz.. Type out the memo in word defaults, and overlay it on a copy of the "real" memo here is what you get. this is alternating gif image that changes back and forth from a home created doc and the CBS doc

This is simply not just coincidence..You are the one overlooking the obvious my friend..


http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug181973-overlay.gif
It isn't coincidence at all... Microsoft Word has reproduced nearly all previously existing fonts.

They are standard.

If you type the letter today that was created on a properly functioning typewriter or 30 years ago, Word would reporduce it exactly. It's designed to do exactly that.

It's not coincidence. Its designed.

That it functions as designed doesn't in any way suggest that the document is fake. It suggests that this is a flawed method of determining if the document is fake.

Thig Lyfe
09-11-2004, 09:52 AM
It isn't coincidence at all... Microsoft Word has reproduced nearly all previously existing fonts.

They are standard.

If you type the letter today that was created on a properly functioning typewriter or 30 years ago, Word would reporduce it exactly. It's designed to do exactly that.

It's not coincidence. Its designed.

That it functions as designed doesn't in any way suggest that the document is fake. It suggests that this is a flawed method of determining if the document is fake.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v39/SwedeCarlson/Smilies/blahblah.gif

jAZ
09-11-2004, 09:53 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug181973-overlay.gif
I would also point out that the "th" in that animated gif, doesn't line up. The real one is slightly higher that the MS Word one.

FringeNC
09-11-2004, 10:02 AM
It isn't coincidence at all... Microsoft Word has reproduced nearly all previously existing fonts.

They are standard.

If you type the letter today that was created on a properly functioning typewriter or 30 years ago, Word would reporduce it exactly. It's designed to do exactly that.

It's not coincidence. Its designed.

That it functions as designed doesn't in any way suggest that the document is fake. It suggests that this is a flawed method of determining if the document is fake.

So Jaz...attach a probability for me that this doc is legit....not technologically, but probabilistically...think it is more than 1 in a million...1 in a hundred...what?

Joe Seahawk
09-11-2004, 10:08 AM
I would also point out that the "th" in that animated gif, doesn't line up. The real one is slightly higher that the MS Word one.

They match up identical when you convert to pdf to print..

www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

RINGLEADER
09-11-2004, 10:15 AM
It seems to me that Dan Rather thinks that if he says there were typewriters that could do superscript then the issue is dead. I had a selectric 2 that could do superscript, but not as a single character. I've heard you could get special balls that had superscript on them, but I've yet to see someone produce an example of one and I highly doubt that a National Guard base would be exchanging typefaces in the course of doing a memo - let alone having one of these special symbol balls to begin with.

Dan Rather seems to think that since Times New Roman existed at the time it means that typewriters actually used it. I have yet to see someone produce a selectric typeface that resembles Times New Roman.

Dan Rather seems to think that because there were typewriters that existed that had proportional spacing it was widely in use by the National Guard. I have yet to see anyone produce an example of a widely-available typewriter that does proportional spacing or any evidence that the National Guard ever purchased one.

Rather ignored the issue of kerning (having portions of one character appear within the space of other letters).

Rather ignored the issue that the documents weren't, evidently, inspected by a typewriter expert but were inspected solely for the legitimacy of the signature.

Rather ignored that you had to hit a RETURN button to start a new line on every electric typewriter I ever heard of. It seems more than just a little coincidental that the author of this letter decided not to use any hyphens and decided to hit RETURN at the exact same places that Microsoft Word automatically wraps the document.

Rather ignored the issue of document size during that time and why these memos would be created in a format that is consistent with Microsoft Word default settings for 8.5" x 11" paper which was NOT standard issue at the time for the National Guard office that supposedly created them.

Rather ignored the issue of what protocol was used in creating National Guard memos of the time or what abbreviations were commonly used in memos.

Rather had not produced similar documents that show the same style of writing from Killian or anyone else in that office for that matter. Show another Killian memo from the time this was supposedly written that has proportional spacing, Times New Roman fonts, superscript lettering as a single character or active kerning.

Dan Rather ignores that other characters in the letter could not be created (the curved apostrophes) without changing additional keys on the typewriter. I have yet to see someone produce examples of the curved apostrophes being used by typewriters at the time.

Add to this the fact that the General referenced in one of the letters was no only serving and was, according to other reports, placed in a location he actually never had been.

Add to this the fact that the General that supposedly served as a witness to how Killian was acting and talking at the time now says that CBS misled him by saying they had Killian's hand-written notes when, in fact, they had photo-copies or photo-copies.

Add to this the fact that this same General (Hodges) now says that his review of the documents does not conform to what they did at the time and that he believes they are a "fraud".

Add to this the fact that the document expert employed by CBS says that he only reviewed the signature on one document and couldn't verify the authenticity of the other documents because he couldn't find reference material that Killian had signed with his initials (which in itself is strange).

Add to this the fact that CBS contacted both the wife and son of Killian who contradicted their conclusions that people who knew Killian felt this was what he was thinking, yet decided not to include their comments because they had people like Hodges (who has since recanted and said CBS lied to him) who they thought were closer to Killian.

Add to this the fact that CBS told Killian's son that they would not include information from other people who supported what he was telling them (that his father liked Bush and thought he was a good pilot) because, according to him, "they thought those people were too pro-Bush".

Add to this the fact that Ben Barnes, the other focus of their story, isn't just a supporter of John Kerry, but someone who has raised more than $500,000 for Kerry's campaign according to published reports.

Add to that the fact that Ben Barnes has now contorted his explanation of how he assisted Bush without contradicting sworn testimony he has provided that he didn't help Bush.

Add to that the fact that Barnes originally said he was Lt. Governor when he helped Bush get into the National Guard when, in fact, Bush had entered the National Guard before Barnes was Lt Governor. Not surprisingly, he has changed his story since first making this claim last year.

Add to this the fact that Ben Barnes' own daughter now says that he told her in 2000 that he never helped George W Bush get into the National Guard.

Add to this the fact that Barnes' assistant called radio shows representing herself as a friend of Barnes' daughter (who claimed she had only spoken with this woman twice) and cancelled interviews she had agreed to do. This assistant also claimed that Amy Barnes was recanting her claims that her father lied, but Barnes' daughter ultimately not only went on the radio interviews but said that the statement that Barnes' assistant was attributing to her was, itself, a lie.


Rather would address these issues if he was so convinced that what he is reporting is truth. Unfortunately, I think he's going to have some serious problems reconciling all of these issues despite what Taco and the rest of the hard-left want to believe.

Frazod
09-11-2004, 10:15 AM
That's what they are down to... holding desperately to the notion that they are fake... to the point ignoring even the most obvious.

Isn't the point of having standards fonts so that you can have a uniform typeset? And if you use the same font and spacing, you should be able to reproduce most any typical document from the past that was created using standard fonts at the time?

This document is a fake, and not just a fake - a pathetically obvious fake. It wouldn't matter if it was submitted to desparage republicans, democrats, communists or girl scouts.

It's a horrid, shoddy forgery prepared by some fuqtard who didn't have clue one how to do it right. A fuqtard who has probably never even used a typewriter. A fuqtard who has no knowledge of how a military memo should look. A fuqtard who has no insight as to how a serviceman would draft such a memo in the first place.

The only desperate notion here is that it isn't fake. Expecting us to believe that some officer exhibited advanced typing skills that didn't even exist at the time to create a half page note is insane.

The fact that you are still defending this shit does nothing but paint you as a mindless extremist who cares nothing about truth or logic - only your own desperate need for this thing TO BE REAL despite the fact that it flies in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertable evidence to the contrary.

I thought you were smarter than this. :shake:

RINGLEADER
09-11-2004, 10:16 AM
I would also point out that the "th" in that animated gif, doesn't line up. The real one is slightly higher that the MS Word one.


Wow. That settles it. Just ignore my previous post Sherlock...

nychief
09-11-2004, 10:22 AM
why is the consevative brian trust here at the CP so worked up over this document?

The only thing that matters is are you, and more over, is the country better off than four years ago?

FringeNC
09-11-2004, 10:24 AM
This document is a fake, and not just a fake - a pathetically obvious fake. It wouldn't matter if it was submitted to desparage republicans, democrats, communists or girl scouts.

It's a horrid, shoddy forgery prepared by some fuqtard who didn't have clue one how to do it right. A fuqtard who has probably never even used a typewriter. A fuqtard who has no knowledge of how a military memo should look. A fuqtard who has no insight as to how a serviceman would draft such a memo in the first place.

The only desperate notion here is that it isn't fake. Expecting us to believe that some officer exhibited advanced typing skills that didn't even exist at the time to create a half page note is insane.

The fact that you are still defending this shit does nothing but paint you as a mindless extremist who cares nothing about truth or logic - only your own desperate need for this thing TO BE REAL despite the fact that it flies in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertable evidence to the contrary.

I thought you were smarter than this. :shake:


That pretty much sums it up. Dan Rather crossed a line last night when he continued to claim it was legit. There needs to be an emergency shareholders meeting for Viacom. Obviously, Viacom is a company out of control, squandering brand name and shareholder wealth by allowing this charade to continue. Not only does the entire CBS news division need to be fired, the CEO of Viacom needs to be fired. There is no adult supervision at CBS.

Frazod
09-11-2004, 10:28 AM
why is the consevative brian trust here at the CP so worked up over this document?

The only thing that matters is are you, and more over, is the country better off than four years ago?

I'm not part of the conservative brain trust. I just don't like having my intelligence insulted. This pisses me off.

yoswif
09-11-2004, 10:30 AM
I was active duty Air Force from '72'-'76'. Physicals were ordered by base medical staff, not anyone in your chain of command. It would be inconceivable that Killian would order him to take a physical when that was the function of medical personnel. If Bush refused orders to take a routine medical exam, it would have been the orders of of the base medical officer, not the orders of someone in his chain of command.

I would question whether Bush would have been tested for drugs during a routine medical examination anytime during his service period. I had a Crypto Secret clearance because I put the daily codes in the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) receiver/transmitter of F-111s and drug testing wasn't included in my medical exam until '75'.

There are so many things wrong with these alleged documents (AFM 35-13 instead of AFR 35-13 or OETR instead of OER for example), it's hard to call them forgeries. I doubt there's ever been a more inept attempt to forge documents in the history of forged documents.

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 10:32 AM
why is the consevative brian trust here at the CP so worked up over this document?

The only thing that matters is are you, and more over, is the country better off than four years ago?
Sorry, I missed the episode of '60 Minutes II' where they asked "are you better off than four years ago?" All I saw was the one where they had this bogus, lying expose on the President.

RINGLEADER
09-11-2004, 10:32 AM
why is the consevative brian trust here at the CP so worked up over this document?

The only thing that matters is are you, and more over, is the country better off than four years ago?


Because the DNC planned a coordinated attack on Bush over the past week using documents that were forgeries.

And the only thing that matters isn't whether the country is better off than four years ago (although that's a fine way for some to determine their vote I suppose), it's also who has the better vision for the country going forward.

RINGLEADER
09-11-2004, 10:33 AM
I'm not part of the conservative brain trust. I just don't like having my intelligence insulted. This pisses me off.


:clap: :clap: :clap:

Frazod is anything but a partisan hack...

Frazod
09-11-2004, 10:35 AM
That pretty much sums it up. Dan Rather crossed a line last night when he continued to claim it was legit. There needs to be an emergency shareholders meeting for Viacom. Obviously, Viacom is a company out of control, squandering brand name and shareholder wealth by allowing this charade to continue. Not only does the entire CBS news division need to be fired, the CEO of Viacom needs to be fired. There is no adult supervision at CBS.

This is a bit extreme - I don't believe the CEO of Viacom has any more personal responsibility in this matter than Kerry does. But the CBS news division definitely has issues. It certainly brings their credibility into question, and makes me wonder how many other stories they've fudged.

headsnap
09-11-2004, 10:35 AM
It isn't coincidence at all... Microsoft Word has reproduced nearly all previously existing fonts.

They are standard.

If you type the letter today that was created on a properly functioning typewriter or 30 years ago, Word would reporduce it exactly. It's designed to do exactly that.

It's not coincidence. Its designed.

That it functions as designed doesn't in any way suggest that the document is fake. It suggests that this is a flawed method of determining if the document is fake.
you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.

I do Graphic Design, I work with fonts ALL THE TIME. Times New Roman on a PC is different from Times New Roman on a MAC, which is different from Times New Roman on an IBM Selectric. Times New Roman from one type house will be different in kerning, spacing, etc... from TNR from a different type house. THEY ARE NOT STANDARD AT ALL!!!

I want Taco to take me up on that wager, I'll put $100 up that he can't do it using M$ Word. We'll get a third party to come up with a document from the 70's, and see if Teej can dupe it.



once again jAZ, you have no clue about this issue... :shake:

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 10:35 AM
why is the consevative brian trust here at the CP so worked up over this document?

The only thing that matters is are you, and more over, is the country better off than four years ago?
Sorry, I missed where this action alert e-mail posed the question, "are you better off than four years ago?"
Democratic National Committee 'Action Alert' E-mail
By Democratic National Committee
CNSNews.com Information Services
September 10, 2004

(Editor's Note: The following is the text of an "action alert" e-mail sent Friday morning from the Democratic National Committee.)

Dear [Supporter],

Back in February, President Bush sat down in the Oval Office for an interview with Tim Russert and spoke about his service in the National Guard. Bush told us, "I put in my time, proudly so." He said, "And I'm telling you, I did my duty."

But now we know that Bush dishonored the Oval Office by lying to the American people.

New investigations from multiple media sources have revealed the truth about President Bush's service. New military documents show that Bush disobeyed a direct order from his commander to take a flight physical and "failed to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards" -- and was grounded as a result.

New evidence supports claims that Bush missed months of service and that he never showed up for service with the Alabama National Guard.

New evidence shows that Bush received special treatment. His supervisor wrote that he felt pressured from above to "sugar coat" Bush's records.

And Ben Barnes, former Lt. Governor and State House Speaker of Texas, has come forward to say that he pulled strings to get Bush a coveted spot in the Guard, which directly contradicts Bush's claim that he received no special treatment.

Only Bush Can Answer Questions

President Bush has a lot to answer for. Only he can clear up the questions regarding the discrepancies in his service record, and he owes the American people those answers. Here are just a few of the questions Bush must answer.

Why did George Bush say "I did my duty" when he missed months of duty in 1972, 73 and 74?

How did George Bush avoid getting called into active service for missing months of duty in 1972, 73, and 74?

Why did George Bush disobey a direct order to take his physical?

What standard did George Bush fail to meet when he was grounded for failing to perform at US Air Force/Texas Air National Guard Standards?

Why did George Bush go above his commander's head to ensure a favorable evaluation he had not earned?

Why did George Bush say he received "no special treatment" when Ben Barnes says he pulled strings to secure a Guard slot for him?

Who asked Bush family friend Sidney Adger to get Bush a slot in the Guard immediately after Bush graduated and at the height of the Vietnam War?

When will George Bush produce any credible witness who can attest to his service in the Alabama Air National Guard?

Take Action

You can help us hold Bush accountable. Sign our petition to President Bush and demand that he answer the American people's questions about his Guard service.

Make sure the pressure stays on Bush and make sure the media holds him responsible. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper about the questions you have for President Bush.

nychief
09-11-2004, 10:42 AM
Sorry, I missed where this action alert e-mail posed the question, "are you better off than four years ago?"


This story is silly. Bush was a rich kid **** up, everybody knows that. But the story is not going to go away. Which is what the Bush admin. wants. They are good at making the story in to the story. Keeps people from thinking about the failures of this admin. They did the same thing with the micheal moore film and the Clarke book... But eventually, people will have to wake up and smell history.

FringeNC
09-11-2004, 10:42 AM
This is a bit extreme - I don't believe the CEO of Viacom has any more personal responsibility in this matter than Kerry does. But the CBS news division definitely has issues. It certainly brings their credibility into question, and makes me wonder how many other stories they've fudged.

I dunno. When any sane person can reasonably conclude that these docs are forgeries.....that Rather would be allowed to get on CBS and once again claim that they were legit!?! How does this happen? Just firing the news division over the initial hoax would have been fine, but after virtually all experts claimed that it was fake...Rather gets on TV again. Heads should roll.

FringeNC
09-11-2004, 10:45 AM
This story is silly. Bush was a rich kid **** up, everybody knows that. But the story is not going to go away. Which is what the Bush admin. wants. They are good at making the story in to the story. Keeps people from thinking about the failures of this admin. They did the same thing with the micheal moore film and the Clarke book... But eventually, people will have to wake up and smell history.

Wow. The detachment from reality is amazing. Just like the Swift vote issue helped John Kerry, right?

RINGLEADER
09-11-2004, 10:51 AM
Wow. The detachment from reality is amazing. Just like the Swift vote issue helped John Kerry, right?


I smell backfiring...even worse than the swift boat vets...even worst than Zell Miller's speech...

Phobia
09-11-2004, 11:08 AM
If this is concluded to have been concocted, Rather should not only be fired - he should also be sued for Slander and Libel - rendered destitute, and given a cardboard sign in a desolate desert in Arizona.

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 11:15 AM
This story is silly. Bush was a rich kid **** up, everybody knows that. But the story is not going to go away. Which is what the Bush admin. wants. They are good at making the story in to the story. Keeps people from thinking about the failures of this admin. They did the same thing with the micheal moore film and the Clarke book... But eventually, people will have to wake up and smell history.
You are lobbying for a candidate who does not exist.

RINGLEADER
09-11-2004, 11:18 AM
This story is silly. Bush was a rich kid **** up, everybody knows that. But the story is not going to go away. Which is what the Bush admin. wants. They are good at making the story in to the story. Keeps people from thinking about the failures of this admin. They did the same thing with the micheal moore film and the Clarke book... But eventually, people will have to wake up and smell history.


Keep dreaming.

This story is DOA.

Even if the documents were real this story is DOA.

The only people who could give a rat's ass what he did three decades ago wouldn't vote for him anyway.

nychief
09-11-2004, 11:55 AM
Keep dreaming.

This story is DOA.

Even if the documents were real this story is DOA.

The only people who could give a rat's ass what he did three decades ago wouldn't vote for him anyway.


My point is the White House wants the story to have legs. What else are they going to talk about? Issues? Dead kids in Iraq? Economy? War on terror?

patteeu
09-11-2004, 12:43 PM
why is the consevative brian trust here at the CP so worked up over this document?

The only thing that matters is are you, and more over, is the country better off than four years ago?

Why were democrats so worked up about a 3rd rate burglary at the Watergate?

patteeu
09-11-2004, 12:44 PM
That pretty much sums it up. Dan Rather crossed a line last night when he continued to claim it was legit. There needs to be an emergency shareholders meeting for Viacom. Obviously, Viacom is a company out of control, squandering brand name and shareholder wealth by allowing this charade to continue. Not only does the entire CBS news division need to be fired, the CEO of Viacom needs to be fired. There is no adult supervision at CBS.

Don't forget the Portis injury hoax at CBSSportsline.com.

Michael Michigan
09-11-2004, 12:47 PM
My point is the White House wants the story to have legs. What else are they going to talk about? Issues? Dead kids in Iraq? Economy? War on terror?

Dead kids in Iraq?

So you're the guy running the Kerry campaign.

nychief
09-11-2004, 01:06 PM
Dead kids in Iraq?

So you're the guy running the Kerry campaign.


no i just don't take a 1000 dead americans lightly.

patteeu
09-11-2004, 01:12 PM
no i just don't take a 1000 dead americans lightly.

No, but you do disparage them by calling them "kids." As though they couldn't possibly have appreciated the risks they could face as a result of their decision to volunteer to serve their country.

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 01:14 PM
no i just don't take a 1000 dead americans lightly.
Given the date, I'll give you an opportunity to rethink that remark.

nychief
09-11-2004, 01:53 PM
Given the date, I'll give you an opportunity to rethink that remark.


Given the fact I watched the towers fall in person and had friends in them I will remind you of how many iraqi hijackers there where.

0

the Talking Can
09-11-2004, 02:05 PM
Given the fact I watched the towers fall in person and had friends in them I will remind you of how many iraqi hijackers there where.

0

I heard that bitch slap all the way over here....damn.

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 02:45 PM
Given the fact I watched the towers fall in person and had friends in them I will remind you of how many iraqi hijackers there where.

0

That's precisely the kind of arrogance and condescension, ironically coupled with a "poor, poor pitiful me" attitude , that quickly returned New Yorkers to their rightful place of contempt within a few short months after the country poured out our hearts and wallets for you.... :shake:

nychief
09-11-2004, 02:59 PM
That's precisely the kind of arrogance and condescension, ironically coupled with a "poor, poor pitiful me" attitude , that quickly returned New Yorkers to their rightful place of contempt within a few short months after the country poured out our hearts and wallets for you.... :shake:



I am not asking for pitty - I just don't need to be reminded what day it is. Also, 9/11 isn't a new york tragedy, it's a national tragedy. I never ment to come off arrogant or condescending - I am sorry it i didi

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 03:05 PM
I am not asking for pitty - I just don't need to be reminded what day it is. Also, 9/11 isn't a new york tragedy, it's a national tragedy. I never ment to come off arrogant or condescending - I am sorry it i didi

And I'm sorry for your tragedy and loss; your flippant response to BL though seemed in line with that darker side to NYers (and others) that drive much of the rest of the nation bonkers...

God Bless.