Reply
Thu 9 Sep, 2004 02:06 pm
Report from the CBS website:
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 09, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.
Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.
The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.
The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.
But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com honed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.
"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."
The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.
But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.
"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.
"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."
Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.
"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."
He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.
"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"
The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.
"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.
"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."
But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.
"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."
According to an article on the CBS News website, the news program "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."
So if they are fake, who doctored them? Will this lead right to the offices of the DNC?
It looks like liberals and progressives will do anything to gain the presidency. The Democratic party has become as corrupt as the Nixon administration. What is it about the Dems and files/papers?
First, Sandy Berger lifts classified documents, now this. It will be interesting to see the Dems spin this as another part of the vast right wing conspiracy! HaHaHaHa
If they are fake Kerry the moron prolly wrote them the same as he wrote his after action reports.
The word is the format matches Microsoft Word on the Bush documents.
Hate to moisten your parade, but did you happen to notice who sponsors that web site? Not that it necessarily means that the story is false, but they are pretty clearly a right wing news source.
CBS News? Clearly right winged? HUH!?
Read a little closer. CNSNews, sponsored by the Media Research Center.
Re: Bush AWOL documents fake?
A Lone Voice wrote:"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."
But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter....
Wow. Talk about putting a deceptive hype on document type. Fake? Hell no.
The IBM golf ball typewriters were extremely popular and used by just about everyone--government and businesses. The allure of the machine was the ability to change fonts simply by clicking in and out different balls. (It takes about two seconds.) And how do you superscript a "th" in a document? My first secretary was a 70 year old woman. She knew how to superscript a "th" (not to mention superscripting footnote numbers, etc. within the text of a document) on an IBM typewriter without the assistance of automation.
I guess the "experts" forgot how the old secretaries used to do things on the "old fashioned" paper through the roller typewriter! ROFL
They say that since the onset of AIDS in the early 80's it has become progressively harder to find anyone willing to swallow.....but I find that right at 50% of the population will swallow anything.....
How we've missed you, BPB.
I'm enjoying a waffle.....the liberals snack of choice
pass the syrup boy and put on a clean shirt...you're grossing me out....
Re: Bush AWOL documents fake?
Debra_Law wrote: The IBM golf ball typewriters were extremely popular and used by just about everyone--government and businesses.
Maybe you should try actually looking at the document before making silly comments.
Yes, the first IBM Selctric I came out with the "golf ball" in 1961 but it didn't have proportional fonts. The IBM Selectric II came out in 1971 but it didn't gain proportional fonts until the "Selectric II Correcting" model came out in 1972. Since the letter in question is dated in May 1972 it's POSSIBLE that they had a brand new model but your claim that "just about everybody used them" is far off the mark.
Quote:The allure of the machine was the ability to change fonts simply by clicking in and out different balls. (It takes about two seconds.)
"Changing fonts" isn't the same thing as using proportional fonts. The IBM Selectric II allowed you to change between 10 cpi and 12 cpi and to change the font face by changing the ball. That has nothing to do with kearning white space between letters based on individiual letter size (which is what proportional spacing is).
Quote:And how do you superscript a "th" in a document? My first secretary was a 70 year old woman. She knew how to superscript a "th" (not to mention superscripting footnote numbers, etc. within the text of a document) on an IBM typewriter without the assistance of automation.
I guess the "experts" forgot how the old secretaries used to do things on the "old fashioned" paper through the roller typewriter! ROFL
You could raise the characters half of a line to create a superscript with a typewriter but it still uses the same key or ball so the characters appear in the exact same font as they do in the rest of the document - they're just moved up half a line. Even if you changed balls for those two characters they'd still be typed in a full-sized font. What you COULDN'T do with a typewriter is change the font to a half-size font which is the way it appears in the letter in question. And for some odd reason it only appears that way in one place on the letter while the more typical "111th F.I.S." (all in one font) appears in other parts of the letter without any superscript at all. Would your 70 year old secretary have been so careless to chose to create a superscript in one place an while not using it in 2 other identical instances in a simple 2 sentence letter?
fishin
ROFL, fishin.
Not only do you claim the documents from the commander's file are forgeries---but they are such lousy forgeries than any idiot can identify them as forgeries. Hmmmm. You don't think the network brass and the producers of "60 Minutes" would have the documents authenticated by experts to cover their own @sses? Maybe the "60 Minutes" ought to pay you a retainer fee and keep you on their staff just to keep them on the up & up. ROFL
Re: fishin
Debra_Law wrote:ROFL, fishin.
Not only do you claim the documents from the commander's file are forgeries---but they are such lousy forgeries than any idiot can identify them as forgeries. Hmmmm. You don't think the network brass and the producers of "60 Minutes" would have the documents authenticated by experts to cover their own @sses?
I don't think he was saying "any idiot" could identify them as forgeries; he was simply refuting your misinformation.
And yes, I think the network brass at CBS
would make mistakes in their rush to air this story. But I think the question is:
Is their motivation coming from an attempt in trying to scoop other networks and media, or is it an attempt to prop up Kerry's numbers?
Watching the last few nights of news broadcasts, what with John Robert's pathetic stories and such, I'm not convinced that they are necessarily innocent in their motivation....
Forgeries?!?
If the memos from Killian's file are forgeries, why would the White House have released
two identical copies that it had in its possession after the CBS broadcast?
Did the White House forge
them as well?
One more obvious question: how is it that this White House keeps "finding" new documents it previously claimed were lost?
You conservatives have
got to stop clicking on Drudge.
And another goddamn thing:
How come all these Republicans who couldn't spot
obvious forgeries such as the Niger yellowcake documents are all of a sudden experts in forensics?
Morans.
PDiddie wrote:And another goddamn thing:
How come all these Republicans who couldn't spot
obvious forgeries such as the Niger yellowcake documents are all of a sudden experts in forensics?
Morans.
:wink:
The ones who think they discovered this weren't the ones pouring over Niger documents I'm quite sure. :wink:
Brand X wrote:The ones who think they discovered this weren't the ones pouring over Niger documents I'm quite sure. :wink:
Then why weren't
they the ones on the yellowcake case?
(
God, this is stupid...)
PDiddie wrote:Brand X wrote:The ones who think they discovered this weren't the ones pouring over Niger documents I'm quite sure. :wink:
Then why weren't
they the ones on the yellowcake case?
(
God, this is stupid...)
It is stupid...elections coming down to chads and fonts...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace