Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 06:30
VIEWED: 9503
PAGE 2 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Typical of right-wingers. Jumping all over something before the facts. But then, facts really don't seem to matter even afterwards either.
If you have a problem with the Associated Press story, take it up with the Associated Press. I found their information interesting. Admittedly it's still in dispute, but something to consider nonetheless.
Still waiting for someone identify the source of the memos. Wonder why CBS is hiding this important information? Also still researching early '70s typewriter fonts.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This election should stand as proof-positive that plurality voting, and the two party system, have become monumental wastes of time and money. We'd get better leaders (more honest at least) if we just had a nationwide lottery. Every four years we go through this ridiculous charade, each time more embarassing than the last. There are sensible fixes for this nonsense easily within our reach and we continue to put up with it.
http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm
http://www.approvalvoting.org/
Anybody besides me see the system as the problem? Out of over 250 million people, are Bush and Kerry seriously the best we can do??? I just can't accept that.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This election should stand as proof-positive that plurality voting, and the two party system, have become monumental wastes of time and money. We'd get better leaders (more honest at least) if we just had a nationwide lottery. Every four years we go through this ridiculous charade, each time more embarassing than the last. There are sensible fixes for this nonsense easily within our reach and we continue to put up with it.
http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm
http://www.approvalvoting.org/
Anybody besides me see the system as the problem? Out of over 250 million people, are Bush and Kerry seriously the best we can do??? I just can't accept that.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
I LOVE the idea of approval voting in principle. I think however that Big money/Interest groups could determine which candidates get on the ballots one way or the other and we'd still be in the predicament we are in today.
Edit: One other thing that kind of bothers me about our electoral system is that more people don't take advantage of the ability to vote. Even if a candidate wins the "Popular" vote..did they really, when you only have about 38% of the population voting? Does that mean that 62% of the country have cast a vote of "No Confidence" for the candidates?
"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...Also still researching early '70s typewriter fonts.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Hmm. Still no luck on the superscripts, but I did find some paper documents in my old files that were typed on an IBM Selectric I back in the early '70s. They are Courier New font, just like the memos in question, and one defining feature is that the periods are slightly subscripted (below the line). The memos don't have this subscrition of the periods. maybe a different typewriter? I'll try to find a Xerox daisywheel.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...Also still researching early '70s typewriter fonts.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Hmm. Still no luck on the superscripts, but I did find some paper documents in my old files that were typed on an IBM Selectric I back in the early '70s. They are Courier New font, just like the memos in question, and one defining feature is that the periods are slightly subscripted (below the line). The memos don't have this subscrition of the periods. maybe a different typewriter? I'll try to find a Xerox daisywheel.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Hehehehe..
"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
Looks like neither side is above a little knavery relating to ancient history.
The first part of your statement is interesting in your implication that, if these documents are forgeries, one of the campaigns was involved with the forgeries (I actually agree with you on this if/then - just not the identity part). The second part of your statement is interesting in that I'm amused you would consider something that happened in my lifetime as ancient history.
This story blew up huge on the blogosphere yesterday. A large number of bloggers claimed these documents were forgeries because of two bits of evidence: the proportional font and the superscript. The claim being made that typewriters in common usage at the time did not have those features and therefore someone created these using a word processing program.
Quote:
excerpted from CNN article
Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript -- a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" -- as evidence indicating forgery.
I noticed CNN has dropped the proportional font part of the argument. Probably due to the fact that IBM typewriters have had that feature since 1941. Here's an advertisement from 1954 touting that particular feature (I strung out the link so the picture wouldn't load):
http:// www.etypewriters.com/ 1954-b-2.JPG
The second part of the argument is that the presence of the superscript means this was done on a word processor instead of a typewriter. Here's a link to one of the earlier documents released by the Bush administration from the President's files. Note that there is a superscript on the second typed line (once again, stringing out the link):
http://users.cis.net/ coldfeet/ doc10.gif
So if the presence of a superscript in a typed document from the early 1970s means that document is forged, then Bush's file has other forgeries.
I prefer to think that the earlier documents released by the White House did not contain forgeries. So the easy answer of whether or not the documents COULD have been created on a typewriter is yes.
The more interesting portion of the CNN article is in regards to the two interviewed subjects who state that the fourth document (the CYA memo) is inconsistent with what they knew of Killian. Since one of these people is his son, I give this pretty good value. CBS is going to have to produce the trail of where they actually got these documents and how they vetted their accuracy. On this topic I happen to agree with Josh Marshall’s post this morning concerning the documents:
Quote:
excerpted from http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_05.php#003462
I'm actually supposed to be on semi-vacation here at the ocean. But let me offer an update on this memo business. One of the guys who was in the mix in all of this at the time -- Hodges -- told CBS that these documents accurately reflected Killian's thinking at the time. On top of that, the White House -- and thus the president -- made no effort to question the story the documents tell. That tells me that they know the underlying story -- or at least some rough approximation of it -- is true.
All that said, however, the questions raised about these documents seem very compelling. And though those points above are telling about the underlying story, I can't see where they tell us much meaningful about the authenticity of these documents
…
If a few qualified experts came forward and said, 'Well, those criticisms don't add up if you know the subject. And the bottom line is that there's nothing about these documents that raise any question about their being produced in the early seventies" that would be plenty for me -- because I don't have the expertise to evaluate the criticisms and the defenses in the face of such expert opinion.
But I'm not hearing anyone say anything like that. In fact, rather the contrary.
The ball is in the court of the publishers of these documents to authentNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is it 2008 yet? Excuse me, waiter, is there a better menu?
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The prime candidate for having them discovered as forgeries, in my mind, is Karl Rove (he of the bugged office and the videotape of Bush's practice debate). The reason being to discredit all the other evidence that Bush needed help to get his Honorable Discharge. The uproar over the possibility that these memos are forgeries has overshadowed all the other stuff about this topic.
LOL..man thats almost a carbon copy of what Terry McAuliffe said today. I knew Bush was responsible for this all along. That dirty
piece of crap. Who knows how many other forged documents that dirty is hiding from the American public. I bet Dan Blather is beside himself with rage at being set up in such a poorly fashioned way. John Kerry has been wronged!!! 
I couldn't get the second link to open.
"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's two spaces in the second link that you have to get rid of.
I'm glad that Terry agrees with my analysis. This was a common thread last night on many of the blogs I read: who would be the likely candidate if this was a forgery.
The fact that these documents were questioned so quickly leads me to think that, if they are forgeries, they are very sloppy forgeries. Now why would you create a sloppy forgery? Well if you want people to believe that these are genuine than it means that you are really incompetent. This could be the case. But if you want people to quickly figure out these are fake and, by extension, that all other documents damaging to Bush's claims that he honorably served are potentially fake then it makes sense that they were sloppily forged. Karl Rove is a brilliant strategist. If anyone were going to employ this misdirection it would be him. It's a pretty easy conclusion to draw.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The second part of the argument is that the presence of the superscript means this was done on a word processor instead of a typewriter. Here's a link to one of the earlier documents released by the Bush administration from the President's files. Note that there is a superscript on the second typed line (once again, stringing out the link):
http://users.cis.net/ coldfeet/ doc10.gif
So if the presence of a superscript in a typed document from the early 1970s means that document is forged, then Bush's file has other forgeries.
The only problem with that theory, is that all the other lines where the same text (111th) comes up DO NOT have the superscript. I'm thinking the image has been doctored, to further someones argument. PS thanks for the link.
"I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME