so, after my original doubts over the memo reported on CBS, i have seen a rather visceral response from the right to the point that i am now starting to think that there might be much truth to the memo. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200409100010">this site</a> (yes, it's liberal) provides an analysis that addresses everything that's been used to try and discredit the memos and i think it's pretty convincing -- enough to force me to reconsider my thinking. further, i think evidence is starting to mount that there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy.<br><br>while the right might be trying to go after CBS, a large portion of the media is exposing their conservative leaning roots in this effort. interesting times.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
I don't care if the site is liberal or conservative. Their analysis is simply flawed in every way. Here we go point by point...<br><br>1. "Aug. 14, 1973, memo is enlarged and the word 'interference' is examined, it's clear the two middle e's rest higher on the page than the other two e's; that is not something a modern-day word processor would likely do."<br>This would be significant if EVERY "e" in the document showed the higher baseline. This would be indicative of a typewriter anomaly. Fact is something like this can only be determined by looking at the original or maybe even a first generation copy which CBS refuses to provide to independent document investigators.<br>It is just as reasonable to conclude based on the document available to examine that the two "e"s which are very close together on the page exhibit this due to multi-generation copying and then subsequent scanning then converting to a PDF. Thing is NONE of the characters match on these memos when blown up. Compare an "n" or an "a" on one spot to another. They look completely different. This is why current theories rest on things that can be concluded just by looking at a multi-copied, scanned, converted document. Font, true superscripts, curly apostrophes, letter spacing.<br><br>2. "backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content."<br>Thrilling that these anonymous people have backed up the documents. A handwriting expert is useless since the signature is not in question. Until these people can be questioned this is irrelevant.<br>"Hey CBS, we think these documents are fake."<br>"Well, we have experts that say they aren't."<br>"Can we talk to them, ask some questions?"<br>"No."<br>"Oh, OK, must be our mistake then, thanks."<br><br>3. "One senior CBS official told The Washington Post that CBS reporters confirmed the memos authenticity with Major General Bobby Hodges, whose name appears in one of the memos"<br>"He said a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone, and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."<br><br>Here is Hodges statement today:<br>"Retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was cited by a senior CBS official on Thursday as the network's "trump card" in verifying the documents, said in an interview that he was "misled" by CBS and believed the documents to be forgeries.<br><br>Hodges said that he was read only excerpts of the documents and never saw the documents."<br><br>I believe I have read Hodges is a Bush supporter. I report, you decide.<br><br>4. EXHIBIT A: Superscript was available.<br>Same tired and horrible argument. Everyone keeps showing that same document with the "superscripted" "th" (same one linked to on Sean's URL). It isn't even close to the superscript on the documents in question. The "th" on this example is from a mono-spaced font and doesn't event extend above the height of the capital letters. The "th" on the forged documents are of a clearly smaller font and extend above the height of the capitals of the font. Not even in the same ballpark. Again the real argument on the superscript is not that it wasn't available it just was not available in the manner on which we see it in the memo in 72.<br><br>5. EXHIBIT B: Proportional spacing was available.<br>Again obfuscating the argument. The argument is not that proportional was not available just was it available on a typewriter that could also do the superscripted "th" and a curly apostrophe in the exact font in question (note the numerical "4"). And if such a typewriter did exist would it have been available to and would it have been easy enough to use for this guy writing one page memos for the National Guard for his "personal" records?<br>Have you seen what you needed to do to type a proportional spaced document on one of these machines? Check it out In this case you had to type everything twice!<br><br>6. EXHIBIT C: Apostrophe was available. Print advertisements for the IBM Executive Electric typewriter from as early as 1953 reveal that this typewriter featured a curlicue-type apostrophe similar to the type used in the CBS memos.<br><br>First, my point above applies here too. It's not that the curly apostrophe didn't exist it's the totality of all the anomalies.<br>But, here we have the vaunted IBM Executive. Isn't this the machine that cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 around the time the memos were typed? But even if it were $100 was it the type of machine this guy would have used to write these memos and did it have all the features that the memo shows it needs to have?<br><br>6. EXHIBIT D: Font was available. OK, now were getting somewhere. The author of the article Sean links to relies on another source for this. Here<br>Here's the meat of what he said...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> (I) have come to the conclusion that the memos could have definitely been written in the early 1970s. I've found a typewriter that could do it. The IBM Selectric Composer, first marketed in 1966, is capable of producing a scalable memo in the particular font we see. The manual for that typewriter can be found here:<br>The font available for that typewriter that is used in the memo is called "Aldine Roman". See a replication of it here called Bembo (you have to scroll down a bit). You'll see that it better matches the font in the Killian memos. Times Roman in Word has too fine of serifs for what is created in the memos. The fonts are very similar however. If you go to page 168 (173 of the pdf), you'll see that Aldine Roman is available in three sizes: 8, 10, and 12. The superscript is made with the 8-point size element font ball. A secretary conceivably took the time to insert the superscript in two of the memos, but not the other two. It would add about 30 seconds to the job. Instructions on how to superscript can be found on page 51 and a couple other pages. The machine was complicated to learn but there is no reason it couldn't have been used in the National Guard.<p><hr></blockquote><p>OK, now we have to involve a secretary!<br>But now we've jumped again from the Executive back to the Selectric Composer (which I have previously linked to). From that link...<br>"The basic task of the IBM Composer was to produce justified camera ready copy using proportional fonts.".<br>Right, sound like just the machine to type up some memos on?<br>Again, we now need to believe that a secretary has to type these memos and the IBM Selectric Composer was the only choice she had to type on. Why? Did you see how complex it is to type on this machine. You really think a secretary, given the choice between the Composer and a run-of-the-mill typewriter would have preferred the former to type a simple short one page memo. A big stretch. And last, even if this were all true the secretary had to on two separate occasions chosen to use the exact same line breaks that MS Word achieves using auto-word wrap. Remember on these machines you had to make a personal choice when to end the line and start a new one. It was a judgment call. MS Word make the choice for you and does it perfectly. Yet this phantom secretary made the exact perfect choice on every line! No hyphenation at all.<br><br>7. BONUS EXHIBIT: Amateur forensics<br>A non-argument. People are simply raising amazing good points that if CBSs "forensic experts" have done there job then CBS should have quite an easy time answering and I can't see why if they are so sure don't offer up the originals or first generation copies for some non-anonymous experts to take a look at and further back-up CBS's claim.<br><br>Last, today there are reports disputing the actual content. I forget the arguments but they just add to the suspicion.<br><br>Last on a slightly more curious note. While I don't think these things weigh in on authenticating the documents did anyone else find it curious as to why the 111th Fighter Squadron's mailing address was a Post Office Box? It guess that may be done all the time, just seemed weird. Also the Box number was 34567. A sequence of numbers like someone was just putting in a place holder by typing in a series.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Also, for the record. My gut tells me these are fakes. But my brain tells me there is a chance (1-5%?) they could be proven authentic.<br>If authentic then we need to get some answers from Bush.<br>If not authentic then we can start the discussion of who typed them up and how they got to CBS. But, I think this will be the first order of business at CBS if they are proven fakes.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
Yesterday, Terry McAuliffe said:<br><br><blockquote>"I can unequivocally say that no one involved here at the Democratic National Committee had anything at all to do with any of those documents. If I were an aspiring young journalist, I think I would ask Karl Rove that question"</blockquote><br><br>McAuliffe's poor attempt of shifting blame means he accepts the idea that these documents were forgeries. I mean, why didn't he just say he believed they were authentic? Sounds like he has some inside knowledge about the forged documents.<br><br>Either way, this has blown the lid off the media's already well documented liberal bias. Seems like the Democrats "anybody but Bush" is shared fully by the media. Recent examples include the AP's manufactured "booing" story, and now [as always], by Dan Rather. Only now, he just looks stupid when he denies it. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
How difficult is it going to be to find a hundred other documents produced by Killian and/or his secretary. Compare them and determine what's similiar in the typeset.<br><br>I got a "you must be kidding me!" the other day for mentioning it, but the focus on document forensics and the media swallowing up 'interpretations' offered up by Internet sites is going to turn itself onto the documents previously released by the White House. After years of saying there were no documents, many have been released over the last year. Let's see how the current 'internet blog experts' litmus test holds up to those. Will FoxNews so eagerly announce those to be forgeries when some website claims them to be fake?<br><br><br>
Well, you not going to get a "YGBKM" from me on this one. It's a very good point. In fact you don't even need another document from Killian. You just need ANY other document that exhibits all the same features from the same time period and can be verified authentic by several experts.<br><br>Think is documents 100's and 1000's of years old get "validated" all the time. You'd think it would be easy to do the same for one 32 years old. If only CBS would allow access to the originals. Which they may just still.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
okay, you've addressed the first link i supplied by a non-expert. the issue of hodge changing his story sound similar to paul o'neill shifting his position after he came under attack by conservatives. i am not sure i trust what hodge is now saying, but i think reports indicating that he believes the memo is "computer generated" is irresponsible journalism given that he is not an expert on computer-generated documents. about like reports from the family of killian as being valid -- why would they know about killian's office memos? <br><br>anyway, i've now come across an "expert" who is now believing the memos are real:<br><a href="http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/205917/730">link here</a> -- appears to know his stuff.<br><br>nice discussion of typography here:<br><a href="http://typographi.com/000911.php">link here</a><br><br>appears to be similar to a rape case when it comes down to he said/she said. hopefully, more evidence gets introduced soon.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.