60 Minutes documents faked?

Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 12:05 PM

I know, I know, I found the story on Drudge so it can't possible be true, you know, because it's from Drudge, but interesting none the less.<br><br>Check out these documents...<br>http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf<br>http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf<br>http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf<br>http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf<br><br>Which is a copy of the memos used on the 60 minutes report.<br><br>It's from 1972! Notice anything unusual about it?<br><br>Proportional font?<br>Superscripts?<br><br>Hey, go open word and type...<br>"Report to the 111th F.I.S"<br>What automatically happend to the "th"?<br><br>Typed in 1972? Hmmmm, makes one wonder.<br>(BTW, Killian died about 20 years ago, so we can't ask him.)<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
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 12:30 PM

Interesting. Wouldn't it be easy enough to get a some memos from this guy's files about normal stuff and compare? He seems to write plenty of memos (even to himself for filing) so that shouldn't be too hard to check.<br><br>Typewriter trivia:<br><br>In 1944, IBM designs the first typewriter with proportional spacing.<br><br>What if this guy had a brother in law who is a vice-president over at IBM? Stranger things can happen. After thirty years his brother in law might have even given him one. My brother in law is a vice president at IBM and I get nothing. <br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 12:40 PM

Hmmm, interesting. What's your take on the superscripted "th" in two of the memos. In the other two the "th"s are seperated from the numbers they are modifiying, which seems wierd that a military guy writing a memo would bother to put a space in there. You know like this for example...<br>"I work on 12 th street and will be at your location on the 21 st"<br><br>Doesn't that seem unusual?<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
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 12:43 PM

<br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/interesting.mp3" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 12:45 PM

Aren't these documents released by the White House under the Freedom of Information act? They have been released to the press, not just CBS. Is it CBS or the White House that is implied to have faked the docs? <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 12:47 PM

No these were documents either the Boston Globe or CBS uncovered, I don't know which. They did not originate at the White House.<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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 12:53 PM

More hmmmm. This is a cut and paste from a blog I found on the subject...<br>------------------<br>9/9/2004: Bush Guard Documents: Forged<br><br>I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft’s Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date “18 August 1973,” then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.<br><br>And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”<br><br>A screenshot of the “original” document as found at CBS:<br><br><br>A screenshot of my Microsoft Word document:<br><br><br>The spacing is not just similar—it is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word’s defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the “th” in “187th” is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially “age” the document. (Update: I printed the document and the “th” matches perfectly in the printed version. It’s a difference between screen and printer fonts.)<br><br>There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.<br><br>UPDATE at 9/9/04 10:57:34 am:<br><br>And this is not the only document that was apparently written with Microsoft Word; Jeremy Chrysler had the same idea and discovered another exact correspondence: Bush Guard Documents Forged?<br><br><br>----------------------------<br><br>I haven't visited the link at the bottom so I can't attest to its contents.<br><br>Hmmmm...<br><br><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
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:04 PM

This question about what sort of typesets were available in 1973 should be easy enough to settle. <br><br>I don't think the experts at FreeRepublic or Drudge should be the final word before headlines scream "Fake!"<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:05 PM

Oh man . . . This is a riot. <br><br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:06 PM

Drudge has offered no opinion on the validity of the documents, he's simply linking to a story. So I don't get the connection on the "final word" comment.<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
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:08 PM

Well, I would think the standard in 1973 would have been a typewriter- and that doesn't look like anything a typewriter would spit out.<br><br>You would have thought that if they were going to try and create a fake memo, they would at least have used Courier...<br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:32 PM

You've got to hand it to CBS for really doing their home work. <br>I guess when you are a left leaning news outlet, and you can't find any dirt............just make some up!<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:32 PM

reading about some of the efforts to debunk this, it's been easily shown that the 70's model IBM Selectric uses the same proportional font. Waiting now to hear about the 'th'. Like I said in my first post, this will be a simple thing to uncover.<br><br>Drudge runs a headline using "Internet Report claims" as authenticity. Yeah, that's opinion. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:36 PM

I've got an old IBM selectric in the attic. If I get time later I will get up there and pull it out of storage. To be honest I really do not remember if it had the "th" feature or not. <br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:38 PM

Well, here's an interesting page on the subject of the IBM Selectric...<br><br>Could be possible after all...although I haven't gone through all the fonts that closely...<br><br>EDIT: Eh, not really finding anything that close to what the memo looks like..<br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:39 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You've got to hand it to CBS for really doing their home work.<p><hr></blockquote><p>My homework lesson took all of about ten minutes. I would have been faster but I was on the phone. I knew I used one of these in the 70's.<br><br>Other Dedicated Word Processors. IBM introduced a<br>number of later word processors incorporating various<br>improvements; other manufacturers followed IBM’s lead.<br>None of these achieved the success of the MT/ST. The<br>Magnetic Card Selectric Typewriter (1969) incorporated<br>the concept of the page into processing; one page was<br>stored on each magnetic card. In 1971 the Lexitron (not an<br>IBM product) added a display screen, using paper only for<br>the final output. IBM’s Magnetic Card Executive Typewriter<br>(1972) had proportional spacing in a single type<br>face, sacrificing the interchangeable type elements of the<br>Selectric. <br><br><br><br>As I said, hey the dude might have had known someone at IBM and was typing away on one of the betas for years. It's been known to happen. <br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Michael

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:39 PM

Well it's not like 60 Minutes is a liberal bias......oh ya it is. Anyone want to take bets that 60 Minutes will spin this as they "retyped" it for clarity. <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:42 PM

Actually no this has not been easily shown. The font on the memos is Times New Roman which was never available on any typewriter. Proportional spacing - yes, the font - no. BTW, only about 7 or 8 RARE, expensive typewriters of the time used proportional fonts. It would be also very weird that Microsoft choose this typewriter and its font as its template in creating Word since Word would be simulating all the tab stops and margins also.<br><br>Was there anything Drudge said that was untrue? Aren't "Internet reports claiming"? That's a fact, not an opinion.<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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:46 PM

Sure, completely plausable that either these were standard issue for typing one-page memos at national guard bases or the guy who writes a memo to implecate the future president got one from a mythical brother and he brought it to work to type up these one page memos. I mean, at the time it wouldn't be like these machines cost anywhere in the thousands of dollars range.<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
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:46 PM

Look at the scans from the 1970s IBM Type Styles and Elements brochure that are linked. I looked at every one. I was not able to find the elusive "th" anywhere. <br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:49 PM

I did, I looked at every single one of them...nothing jumped out at me either.<br><br>Unless that doesn't happen to be *all* of the available fonts...<br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:50 PM

"The font on the memos is Times New Roman"<br><br>Times New Roman designed in 1931. Widely used commercially. Microsoft uses their TT adaptive version. Why is this conclusive evidence? <br><br>I think I'll wait for the experts to weigh in. A whole lot of info flying around without authenticity. <br><br>Hey.... what if Rove is behind the half-backed forgery of the memos and provided them to CBS so that CBS could take the hit! He got the freepers going and now it's THE story. The Bush AWOL story is kaput. That BASTARD!!!!!!!<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:53 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Sure, completely plausable that either these were standard issue for typing one-page memos at national guard bases or the guy who writes a memo <p><hr></blockquote><p> I worked in government labs in the late 70's. Government issue was the IBM Selectric. The secretary always had one bolted to her desk. But the boss always had the latest IBM typewriter which did all amazing things. All my bosses did. Since this guy was a memo freak writing memos to file or self and he was up the food chain a bit maybe he was just like my bosses. <br><br>I work in a government lab today. Or at least it is government money. My standard institute build is a crappy wintel box. But I have a liquid cooled dual processor G5 under my desk. According to your logic I do not exist.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 01:55 PM

Have you looked at my link? <br><br>7-1 'Stinkees' in the 5th inning, btw...<br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 02:01 PM

It's not the Selectric it's the EXECUTIVE that even you linked to, there is a difference! And we're not talking about the late 70's we're talking about the early 70's.<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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 02:05 PM

Look you have to find a font from a 1972 era typewriter that used as a standard<br>1) A closed top 4 without a foot<br>2) A curly apostrophy<br>3) A proprotional font<br>4) Had the ability to not only superscript but reduce the size of the font during the superscript.<br><br>And was no so damned expensive that Joe Military was using them to one-off memos for personel files.<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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 02:11 PM

The Rove theory is interestesting and while I'm not one for the black helicopter theories this one actually has a slim chance. But, it's a HUGE gamble against a nothing story. If this was somehow linked back to Rove or his like then that would be a BIG story.<br><br>Of course now that makes me think this is how this will be spun, true or not.<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
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 02:22 PM

I was just trying to be funny. Really. .<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: nutty

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 02:33 PM

the weirdest thing is NO News agency is even reporting this. so a blogger says it's fake, and no one has picked up on the story?<br><br>even FoxNews isnt reporting it, instead they have "Small Bounce for Bush" and "Zawahri Speaks on New Tape"<br><br>You cant polish a Turd.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 02:56 PM

did you see when they superimposed the one they typed today on the "original" memo...?<br><br>I can't direct link images from my webhost, but you can see it here:<br><br>http://www14.brinkster.com/sirlizzard/stuff/word.htm<br><br>neye<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 02:58 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> It's not the Selectric it's the EXECUTIVE that even you linked to, there is a difference! <p><hr></blockquote><p> No sheet Dick Tracy. I did not say they were. The executive was out in 72 and had proportioanl fonts. I only used the Selectric as an example of a piece of crap the secretaries used in he late 70's while my boss used something much cooler with memory etc. Reread my post without so much pent up excitement.<br><br>Yes, this could be a big story. Or it could be a wanker story like Kerry's love affair. I would wait for the break or non break in the real news outlets.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: MattMac112

Fox News now reporting . . . - 09/09/04 03:08 PM

Fox News is now reporting on this story.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 03:09 PM

I sorta remember that the 96-character ball for selectrics had symbolsl including numerical superscripts (st, th) and trademark and copyright symbols. When I typed my dissertation, I used the 88-character ball, and had a heck of a hard time figuring out how to type a copyright symbol. As to proportional type, here's a sample page of fonts for the selectric. I've put the relevant comment in a box.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 04:09 PM

ABC reported on it during Peter Jennings report tonight. ABC is saying that they contacted CBS about the validity of the memo and CBS says that they stand behind the memo. <br><br>The elusive "th" saga continues....<br><br>
Posted by: squareman

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 04:18 PM

So let's assume the docs are faked. Who supplied them? In other words, my question is did someone at 60 minutes deliberately fake them, or did someone else fake them and then supply them to 60 minutes and they were too lazy (and peeing themselves to release the story) to check the authenticity out. <br><br>My money would be on the latter, but I'm just guessing.<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 04:32 PM

see my earlier post.... I've got a likely senario.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Bryan

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 04:43 PM

There's a new report here.<br><br>Of note:<br><br>Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s." <br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 04:51 PM

After looking at them a bit now that I have the time they look very fake to me. Their could have been a proportional font back then. There even could have been a superscript th as this was a common symbol on the later golf ball selectrics and I would not doubt that it would have been one of the first symbols to go into an earlier machine like the 1971 Executive.<br><br>But: I guess I saw too many FBI show with Efrem Zimbalist Junior in the 70's. How did the FBI catch people back then. By matching to a specific typewriter the ransom note. They did that by finding a worn letter or a dirty filled in "e" or a specific key that fires hard or soft. There are all sorts of those things in these memos but none of them are consistent. The e is filled and then next it is not. A letter has a broken kern then it does not. It looks like someone xeroxed it a whole bunch of times on high then low so that these effects would build up.<br><br>So if they are fakes then<br><br>1) they did not bother to find a typewriter<br>2) they did not bother to get a correct era typewriter<br>3) they used a proportional font<br>4) they used the superscript th<br>5) they xerox aged them to make them look like they came from a typewriter<br><br>1 through 5 and especially 3 means that the people who faked them were complete idiots. What I cannot understand is that if 1 - 5 are true how could this be vetted and not be caught? How is it then looked at by experts even now and it is not conclusive?<br><br>Another explanation could be they wanted to get caught eventually to make CBS look stupid? But that does not hold water because of all 5. It should have been caught before publication. So maybe it started out as a joker who never thought it would be actually used and they are busting a gut right now.<br><br>It will hilarious either way. Either 60 minutes has a clown checking their facts or this frenzy this afternoon goes the way of a lot of Drudge BOO - BOOS <br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: garyW

What's the font Kenneth? - 09/09/04 05:30 PM

This site is has some excellent analysis of what appears now to indeed be a forgery:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php<br><br>< snip ><br>[A]nother aspect of the type on [the August 18, 1973 memo] suggests, perhaps proves, forgery.<br><br>1. The type in the document is KERNED. Kerning is the typsetter's art of spacing various letters in such a manner that they are 'grouped' for better readability. Word processors do this automatically. NO TYPEWRITER CAN PHYSICALLY DO THIS.<br><br>To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments.<br><br>2. The kerning and proportional spacing in each of the lines of type track EXACTLY with 12 point Times Roman font on a six inch margin (left justified). Inother words, the sentences break just as they would on a computer and not as they would on a typewriter. Since the type on the memo is both proportionally spaced and kerned the lines of type break at certain instances (i.e., the last word in each line of the first paragraph are - 1. running, 2. regarding, 3. rating, 4. is, 5. either). If the memo was created on a typewriter the line breaks would be at different words (e. g., the word 'running' is at the absolute outside edge of the sentence and would probably not be on the first<br>line).<br><br>3. The sentences have a wide variance in their AMOUNT of kerning and proportional spacing. Notice how the first line of the first paragraph seems squished together and little hard to read but the last line of the first paragraph has wider more open spacing. Even the characters themselves are squished in the first line (as a computer does automatically) and more spread out on the last line where there is more room.<br><br>There's no way a typewriter could 'set' the type in this memo and even a good typesetter using a Linotype machine of the era would have to spend hours getting this effect.<br><br><br>Also, CBS is digging itself even deeper:<br><br>"Later, however, Ms. Edwards sent out an email that appeared to revise the nature of the "authentication" process:<br>CBS verified the authenticity of the documents by talking to individuals who had seen the documents at the time they were written. These individuals were close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian and confirm that the documents reflect his opinions at the time the documents were written.<br><br>So what CBS is now saying is not that the documents are authentic, but that the opinions they express are authentic, based on the hearsay reports of anonymous persons alleged to be close associates of Col. Killian, who recall his views of thirty-two years ago. This is what passes for "authentication" in the mainstream media."<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: What's the font Kenneth? - 09/09/04 05:43 PM

Where's Rush when you need him <br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: polymerase

Re: What's the font Kenneth? - 09/09/04 06:00 PM

Dooh, I knew there was something else. i even said kern but I was talking about serifs.<br><br>So whoever did it used the default start up font in Microsoft word. I would say there is a one percent chance it was transcribed ethically from the original and a 99% chance that 60 minutes is a pile of chuckleheads.<br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: Trog

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 06:25 PM

Are these supposed to the be original paper memos from the 70's? If this "fake" conspiracy holds water, someone should suggest taking a snip of the paper and date with Carbon-14. That would at least tell you the decade age of the paper. I suppose you could then say that the conspirator got hold of 30 year old paper to type on. <br><br>Whether the fake story turns out to be a fake itself will be fun to watch. At the very least you sure got Matt quivering! <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 06:31 PM

<br>please, no word pictures.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: squareman

Re: What's the font Kenneth? - 09/09/04 07:37 PM

Well, good. Maybe other folks will start to wake up to how unreliable broadcast media has become in the age Mega-communication mergers. It's all about selling advertising dollars and that only happens if you can "catch" the scoop (forget about working for it!). <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 07:51 PM

I know, but I wasn't. I'm actually serious that if this 100% proves to be fakes, some prominent opinion columnist or news agency will somehow imply these memos were planted by the Bush campaign.<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
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 07:58 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> At the very least you sure got Matt quivering<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, as witnessed by my HUGE contribution to this thread . . . <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 07:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>please, no word pictures.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Paul, seriously, why are you such a jackass?<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 08:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Paul, seriously, why are you such a jackass? <p><hr></blockquote><p> I'm a jack ass all the time (or so my wife keeps telling me) but why am I a jackass by not needing a visual picture of you all quivering, foam speckled LCD screen, lather covered iMac while you post non stop your liberal bias this liberal bias that? OK, I got a vivid imagination and I only need one graphic word to send me over the edge. <br><br>Am I a jackass because you may "win" this thread on points because lordy moses the memos are fake? <br><br>You're loopy. Do you have cartoon smoke coming out of your ears like a cartoon mouse or something?<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: sean

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/09/04 08:19 PM

okay, i now have come across this link here<br><br>"The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line (for inserting such symbols as subscripts and superscripts), whereas the Selectric I did not."<br><br>and, here is a document that the dubya camp released showing the same superscripts:<br><br><br><br>and<br><br><br><br>though, i don't know the date of the first document, fwiw.<br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 08:22 PM

OK, I never said it was impossible to type in a proportional font in 72 or even type a superscript "th". But, such a typewriter in 72 would have been very very expensive, in the thousands of dollars expensive. It would be highly unlikely such a typewriter would be issued to a desk in the National Guard for typing memos.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So if they are fakes then<br><br>1) they did not bother to find a typewriter<br>2) they did not bother to get a correct era typewriter<br>3) they used a proportional font<br>4) they used the superscript th<br>5) they xerox aged them to make them look like they came from a typewriter<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well in number 4 I would say that they didn't "use" the superscript "th", MS Word forced it on them. Superscripting the "th" is an automatic function of Word. Notice in some of the memos that "th" is separated from the word? That is the easy but clunky way to make word not superscript the "th".<br><br>So that begs, that if these were simply retyped...<br>1) Why would the typist bother trying to circumvent the auto-superscripting?<br>2) Why are the documents provided by CBS copies of copies of copies...? If these were innocently just retyped why did it have to go through so many copy iterations before reaching CBS. Isn't the more plausible explanation that the multi-copy technique was used to simply try and make the document look aged thereby further implicating these a fakes?<br><br>Last, why is this a Boo - Boo? The bottom of the story says "Developing...", that means there's more to come! <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
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 08:26 PM

Now what I want to ask seriously matt. Why do you have such a short (as in non existent) fuse??? Like a cartoon character your animosity comes out of nowhere.<br><br>Get a thicker skin or back away from the computer and count to ten or something. Hey there's a game on. Relax, the Colts are getting their ass kicked. (sheesh, now don't hold it against me if you made a stupid bet on Peyton.)<br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: garyW

Professional Document Forgers Prefer InDesign - 09/09/04 08:31 PM

No uniform use of the 'th' or subscript 'th' in those documents ,,,, very wierd.<br><br>Also important to note that in the CBS documents there is variation in the character's baseline.... a mechanical-only type flaw that I'm told MS Word can't mimic. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 08:32 PM

Shoot, you're right on the price. It must have been wrong but googled a price tag of $20,000 on the Executive in 72. And that was back when 20,000 was really worth something (A large pizza was a buck, 20 cents more for pepperoni and a coke was 25 cents.)<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: Professional Document Forgers Prefer InDesign - 09/09/04 08:39 PM

www.selectric.org has been hammered. Here is what they have posted now...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sorry, but due to excessive hits, this page is temporarily out of service.  <br><br>Please check back after the election.<br><br>For those who want my opinion...the documents appear to be done in Word, and then copied repeatedly to make them "fuzzy".  They use features that were not available on office typewriters the 1970s, specifically the combination of proportional spacing with superscript font.  The IBM Executive has proportional spacing, but used fixed type bars.  The Selectric has changeable type elements, but fixed spacing (some models could be selected at 10 or 12 pitch, but that's all).  The Selectric Composer was not an office typewriter, but apparently did use proportional spacing.  These were very expensive machines, used by printing offices, not administrative offices. <br><br>Here are scans of the Courier 12 font, and the Prestige Elite 72 font.  Both were commonly used, and are sort of close to the font in the documents, but not quite.  Notice that they are not proportionally spaced, so the typing looks very different from that on the memos.  There is a superscript available for numbers, as used with footnotes, on the Symbol type balls.  These balls were generally used for academics, such as preparing scientific and mathematical papers.  I can find no "th" superscript in any of the IBM literature I have.<br><br>These are scans from a mid-1970s IBM Selectric Typewriter Type Styles brochure, IBM publication G542-0053-7, which does not appear to be explicitly copywrited.<br><br>At least my low opinion of TV news remains intact.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I looked at the documents and can see the baseline irregularties. Could this be the result of this being copied so many times over (introducing "fuzziness") then scanned into pixels which further reduces the resolution, so we're not seeing the full resolution of the original? Opinions?<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
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 08:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why do you have such a short (as in non existent) fuse??? <p><hr></blockquote><p>Because you act like a dick 90 percent of the time? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 09:04 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm a jack ass all the time (or so my wife keeps telling me) but why am I a jackass by not needing a visual picture of you all quivering, foam speckled LCD screen, lather covered iMac while you post non stop your liberal bias this liberal bias that? OK, I got a vivid imagination and I only need one graphic word to send me over the edge<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, that's interesting and everything Paul, but you're being ridiculous. Also, I have an eMac, not an iMac.<br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 09:06 PM

OK, thanks for that. Hmm 90%. Let me ask you a question. Do you post when you are off your meds? Say about 90% of the time? Do you spontaneously start foaming at the mouth quivering lips maybe and and suddenly get the urge to tell perfect strangers to go fsck themselves and tell them they are jackasses in a real weird kind of calm serious manner before smoke comes out of your ears?<br><br>But shoot we are way off topic here. This is politics and in here only and Bush sucks.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 09:10 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you spontaneously start foaming at the mouth quivering lips maybe and and suddenly get the urge to tell perfect strangers to go fsck themselves and tell them they are jackasses<p><hr></blockquote><p>Nope . . . Only you, Paul. <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 09:10 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> but you're being ridiculous. <p><hr></blockquote><p> Your selling crazy and I'm ridiculous. OK.<br><br>Oh shoot the New England patriots just handed the Colts a very frustrating loss. Are those lips quivering? Take a really big chill pill. A red white and blue one. Night night.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 09:12 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Oh shoot the New England patriots just handed the Colts a very frustrating loss. Are those lips quivering? Take a really big chill pill. A red white and blue one. Night night.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>You're losing it man. <br><br>FYI: The Colts aren't my team. Win, lose, who cares?<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 09:42 PM

It's 12:35 AM on 9/10/04 and I'm watching CNN Headline news. They just did a ~60 second report on these exact documents and not one word of this "controversy" (if it can still be called that at this point). They reported on these documents as if they were facts and even quoted Sen. Tom Harkin as saying these documents prove Bush got special treatment and that Bush lied about his service. (All that may be well and true, but these specific documents would no longer prove that). Of course Harkin was under the impression the documents were authentic at the time, so this isn't a criticism of him just CNN continually reporting about these documents as if they were facts a full 6-8 hours after their authenticity has been in serious question. To me this is amazingly terrible reporting.<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
Posted by: sean

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 09:50 PM

who is calling them into serious question? just ABC or are they just saying it's inconclusive? i honestly don't know, but i feel like most of what i've seen is blogs and stuff. i didn't read the ABC stuff, but i take it they are questioning things. any other big players?<br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04
Posted by: Trog

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:00 PM

I have to agree there is something fishy about them, but I wonder why the administration hasn't at least denied the content of them? I haven't read nearly as much about it as most of the people in this thread have (nor do I want to), but in the one report I did read earlier it said the white house did not question its accuracy. But surely Bush himself knows if these accusations are true or false. Perhaps the memos really are forged, but the accusations are true? Who knows.<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:08 PM

ABC - Front of web page. Specifically Nightline interview with widow of "author" who says the "author" loved Bush and would have never written those memos. The authors son echos those sentiments.<br><br>Fox News (I know they don't count - But anyways...) Front page of Fox News<br><br>NBC (a la MSNBC.com) - Front page of web site.<br><br>NY Times.<br><br>Plenty of others.<br><br>It's now 1:07 AM EDT and CNN HLN just ran a more extensive story (over 2 mins.) and again the documents were used as factual source material.<br><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
Posted by: sean

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:12 PM

i wonder if this is like the 2000 election where nobody is sure so they all jump on the bandwagon and call it for Gore on election night . . . except that they are all jumping on the forgery bandwagon, sans CNN -- they've learned their lesson. <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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:16 PM

Here comes the spin! "Maybe the documents are fake but the accusations are true". Well then fire up Word and create some documents that say Bush likes to torture puppies, then it will be true! After all, even if the documents are made up the accusation may be true. Give me a break.<br>In any event the reality more than likely is that the White House simply didn't have the time to vet the documents. They got them faxed to them by CBS then were almost immediately asked to comment on them. Remember CBS claims these memos came from the personal files of the alleged author not official military sources. Most of the comments were non-specific to the contents. Trust me, tomorrow you'll see some denials.<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
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:18 PM

I've read all sides of the argument, I think they are forged. But I'll take a few liberties in my discussion of it because I'm a designer and typography is something I deal with every day. <br><br>The whole thing is really so outrageous.<br><br>Looking at these through-the-washer documents and someone posts on a blog and at FreeRepublic that "they use Microsoft New Times Roman" and are "proportional fonts" and Drudge makes it a story. Then everyone spends the day googling Selectric Typewriters.<br><br>I've read from type experts that it is not New Times Roman. Besides, New Times was in existence for almost 50 years before MS digitized it. Are the differences between Times and New Times so obvious to everyone from these overly Xerox-abused documents? Honestly, can you tell or are you just asuming cause the previous blogger said so? Suddenly every rightwinger has become a typographic brainiac.<br><br>Same with the proportional font issue... like anyone here can look at these fuzzy POS and and say ...pfffhht...sure, proportional fonts! Subscripts, kerning, etc., .... the whole thing is a wild ride on belief of what some previous blogger quoted from another irate blogger. Truth is, the letterforms on these documents would fit well in any late-90's Taco Bell-grunge advertising layout.<br><br>No wonder the news networks might want to research this with experts for authenticity before making it a story. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:23 PM

So instead of doing the responsible thing and suspending the airing of the stories until the documents authenticity is verified they just keep running a story based on very questionable documents. That's what I call responsible reporting. Guess I just need to type up some "memos" saying how Kerry personally plotted to shoot Senators during his anti-war days and I can rely on CNN to report it as fact until the time my forgeries are 100% conclusively proven as fakes? Cool.<br><br>Come on Sean, get real. Even a small child can tell the chance these documents are fake is far greater than the chance they are not.<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
Posted by: Trog

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:25 PM

Whoa! Easy there. I only wondered why there wasn't a flat denial by Bush today, nothing more. I couldn't care less if they're real or not (other than the cheap entertainment of finding out who the forger was, that could be interesting), nor do I really care if Bush did disobey the orders. Seeing as how it is making it to other media outlets now, "tomorrow you'll see some denials" is probably an understatement.<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:36 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Same with the proportional font issue... like anyone here can look at these fuzzy POS and and say ...pfffhht...sure, proportional fonts!<p><hr></blockquote><p>Are you seriously trying to tell me that only a typography expert is able to definitively tell the difference between a mono and proportionally spaced font in this case? Seriously, that is your claim? Are you actually trying to say that these memos as we see them in the PDF could have been typed in a mono spaced font?<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
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:44 PM

I'm saying 99% of the people discussing this in every corner of Internetland, taking sides whether they are authentic or forgery, have no clue what they are talking about. <br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:52 PM

Also, the new attack to discredit the three documents is that the fonts were self-inflicted. Then they came home and slandered all the other honorable proportional fonts.<br><br>Next up: Forensic Document Specialists for Truth<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 10:57 PM

gary, while I completely understand that you are much more versed in typography than I ever will or will want to be, I refer you to my earlier post of a picture overlaying the word-generated letter with the alleged "original document". I don't feel that I have to be an expert to see that these are almost exactly the same, and in my mind, a few copies/scans could easily account for the differences:<br><br>repost of pic<br><br>neye<br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/09/04 11:06 PM

I agree, and have said most all day long the docs look forged. Now, how do we prove that Rove did it?<br><br> <br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/10/04 04:22 AM

Just type up a memo saying so and send it to CBS, and thus it will be true.<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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/10/04 09:28 AM

Rather is actually saying right now when questioned about these docuements, (and I'm paraphrasing)<br>"The story is true and the documents are authentic, there will be no apology or retraction, it's not even being discussed."<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
Posted by: sean

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/10/04 09:51 AM

i just checked news.google.com and see nothing about the documents even listed as a headline anywhere. <br><br>while i don't know enough about typewriters from the 70s to say one way or the other, i am still amazed at the power of the Internet for creating such hoopla. further, I am amazed that our reactions to the story and to each other is not news in itself. As much energy as has been expended in the last 2 days by legions of regular folk all over should be a story, imho. <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
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/10/04 10:15 AM

Geeze Sean, get your glasses on... (excuse my poor XP screen shot taking skills)<br><br><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
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: 60 Minutes documents faked? - 09/10/04 10:26 AM

Hey Dean . . . as you can see, Rather rushed to get this story to air. Yet, for weeks he has joined in with the Kerry campaign's bashing of the Swift Vets and has yet to sit down and do an interview with ANY ONE of the 250 plus Swift Vets who object to Kerry's Vietnam record. <br><br>Yet, when the opportunity arose for CBS to continue hammering the Bush ANG story, Rather didn't miss a second in getting Ben Barnes on the air. Where's the balance and fairness? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/10/04 11:18 AM

See Gary, it didn't take long...<br>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-011417-2610r.htm<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
Posted by: garyW

Re: 60 Minuites documents faked? - 09/10/04 01:58 PM

Well that was a no brainer, wasn't it? <br>How long is it going to take now for the Bush campaign to "suggest" that it was the Kerry campaign that produced forged documents?<br><br>I'm sure it's already out there somewhere...**yawn** <br><br>
Posted by: Trog

How long was that? - 09/10/04 02:21 PM

McClellan suggested the memos surfaced a...resident."<br><br>
Posted by: Boothby4

Re: How long was that? - 09/10/04 02:24 PM

Hey fair is fair. Kerry has blamed the Bush campain directly for the swift boat vets. Face it, this is going to go down as the ugliest campain in history, for both sides.<br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Posted by: Trog

Re: How long was that? - 09/10/04 02:32 PM

I'm with you. These are probably fake, and instead of a group of old war veterans this is a high powered news media outlet. Its embarrassing as hell (or it should be). I don't know if these documents leave a trail back to the democratic party any more than the swift boats do to the Rove machine, but they're both very suspicious to be sure.<br><br>You got it right, its ugly on both sides and I hope this crap doesn't sway voters that should be thinking about the issues... but it probably will. <br><br>
Posted by: garyW

Re: How long was that? - 09/10/04 02:38 PM

Issues? I don't think issues are going to sway undecided voters at this point. I think between Nov. 2 and now it's just a matter of who f*cks up on camera and how hard the media plays it. It could happen to either guy.<br><br><br><br>