New National Guard Record Forgeries????

[CSM]

IBM began selling proportional width typewriters in 1941 -- plenty of time for Bush's 1972 guard unit

IBM announces the Electromatic Model 04 electric typewriter, featuring the revolutionary concept of proportional spacing. By assigning varied rather than uniform spacing to different sized characters, the Type 4 recreated the appearance of a printed page, an effect that was further enhanced by a typewriter ribbon innovation that produced clearer, sharper words on the page. The proportional spacing feature became a staple of the IBM Executive series typewriters.

The plot thickens eh?

 

[DKSuddeth]

dude, you don't read well do you? The article (blog) even stated this. The question is the SUPERSCRIPT. Superscript "th" was NOT available on typewriters in the 70's. Furthermore, if you look at the docs, some of the "th's" are in superscript and some are not. Makes one wonder.......

most of the time, yes. sometimes, no. sinus headaches cause one to suffer from comprehension problems at times. should I take the day off the board?

 

[freeandfun1]

The IBM Selectric II typewriter was the first to offer subscript and superscript.

IBM Selectric typewriter

The Selectric typewriter was first released in 1961 and is generally considered to be a design classic. After the Selectric II was introduced a few years later, the original design was designated the Selectric I. The Correcting Selectric II differed from the Selectric I in many respects:

The Selectric II was squarer at the corners, whereas the Selectric I was rounder.

The Selectric II could be switched (with a lever at the top left of the "carriage") between 10 and 12 characters per inch, whereas the Selectric I had one fixed "pitch".

The Selectric II had a lever (at the top left of the "carriage") that allowed characters to be shifted up to a half space to the left (for inserting a word one character longer or shorter in place of a deleted mistake), whereas the Selectric I did not.

The Selectric II had auto-correction (with the extra key at the bottom right of the keyboard), whereas the Selectric I did not. (The white correction tape was at the left of the typeball and its orange take-up spool at the right of the typeball.)

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.

Selectric Typewriter Museum

IBM Correcting Selectric II
This is my "usefull" typewriter. From a school auction, I have spent a bit of time getting it to work well. It's a pleasure to use now. Features dual pitch, either 10 or 12 spaces per inch, and line-and-a-half vertical spacing. Full width 15" platen. The correcting feature is a big help for lousy typists like me. This typewriter was built in the late 1970s, although the design was introduced about 1973.

Now if the first Selectric II was introduced in 1973, I seriously doubt that the TexANG had them. Have you ever known the military to have, in regular units, the latest of anything? (other than weapons of course).

 

[freeandfun1]

most of the time, yes. sometimes, no. sinus headaches cause one to suffer from comprehension problems at times. should I take the day off the board?

Nah, just wondering. Sorry if you've got a headache. Those sinus headaches can be a big fat *****!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Now if the first Selectric II was introduced in 1973, I seriously doubt that the TexANG had them. Have you ever known the military to have, in regular units, the latest of anything? (other than weapons of course).

the only time in my marine corps career I had EVER seen anything come to the unit that was less than a few years old generally went to the base commanders office. then, maybe after another few years, did it filter down to the squadrons.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

For a comparison of a 2004 Word doc and the questionable 1973 memo

From LGF

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.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”

A screenshot of the “original” document as found at CBS:

__________

A screenshot of my Microsoft Word document:

__________

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 due to a difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font.

There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Nah, just wondering. Sorry if you've got a headache. Those sinus headaches can be a big fat *****!

thanks man. especially when they are 3 days old.

 

[freeandfun1]

For a comparison of a 2004 Word doc and the questionable 1973 memo

From LGF

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.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”

A screenshot of the “original” document as found at CBS:

__________

A screenshot of my Microsoft Word document:

__________

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 due to a difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font.

There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.

Also notice in the docs that the Header is in the same size and font as the body and PERFECTLY centered. Highly unlikely if one was using a typewriter where you have to count the total number of characters, divide by two an then hit the backspace bar to get to your starting point FOR EVERY line.

 

[CSM]

The IBM Selectric II typewriter was the first to offer subscript and superscript.

IBM Selectric typewriter




Selectric Typewriter Museum


Now if the first Selectric II was introduced in 1973, I seriously doubt that the TexANG had them. Have you ever known the military to have, in regular units, the latest of anything? (other than weapons of course).

The way the budgeting used to work in those days for Guard units, it's a wonder that bush's records aren't in charcoal and written on the back of a shovel.

 

[freeandfun1]

the only time in my marine corps career I had EVER seen anything come to the unit that was less than a few years old generally went to the base commanders office. then, maybe after another few years, did it filter down to the squadrons.

exactly. The key point also being that it was INTRODUCED in 1973 which means it probably wasn't available for sale until about 1975 or so.

 

[insein]

another link to add to the mayhem.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

This whole thing wreaks. The media is willing accomplices in mass fraud. Who is there to hold them accountable?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Late mention on Rush, Hannity also mentioned.
Now top story at Drudge.............

I'm telling you, the MSM has not fully grasped the fact that the Internet is a major major challenge to them.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

another link to add to the mayhem.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

This whole thing wreaks. The media is willing accomplices in mass fraud. Who is there to hold them accountable?

US.

 

[Annie]

US.

Exactly! http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200409091142.asp

 

[Annie]

Here's another, with documents:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/000774.html

September 09, 2004
Dead Men Type New Tales?
CBS "news" magazine 60 MInutes heeded Terry McAuliffe's call for help last night.

This morning, Powerline is taking a close look at the memos cited in the show (and by others) that purportedly prove that Bush was AWOL from national guard service. (PDF's of the memos are available on the CBS site). A Powerline reader:


I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:

1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.

2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.

3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.

4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......

5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.


Now, there's a story for an enterprising young reporter to pick up - exposing dupes at 60 Minutes. It's not like Dan Rather is likely to beat you to it.

update - Documents reconstructed:


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.
And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as "authentic."

A screenshot of the "original" document as found at CBS:



The memo produced on Microsoft Word;



The two images, superimposed.



Drudge is now reporting the story, citing "internet sources".

 

[Annie]

THIS Seems to be the most difinitive I've seen, it's really long, here's a bit:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php

Ending of post:

The final word?

Once again, let’s not forget the qualifications: it's a bad copy of a copy and we have no original document for review, but, based on the initial analysis of the documents by an industry expert with over 30 years of experience in typesetting and forensic document examination, the documents “could just well be a fabrication.”

In light of this information, I think that it would be highly appropriate for CBS News and the Boston Globe to attempt to obtain a copy of the original document for more thorough vetting, and run a correction/addendum to the story.

I still have two other forensic document examiners that are examining the pdf file, and I will update if/when they get back to me. I also plan to ask Dr. Bouffard more detail about the nature of the "th" on the end of dates, though in our first conversation he indicated that some typewriters had the capability to do something in that format.

UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard called me again, and after further analysis, he says that he's pretty certain that it's a fake.

Here's why

* He looked through old papers he's written, and noted that he's come up against the inconsistency of the "4" several previous times with forgeries that attempt to duplicate old proportional spaced documents with a computer word processing program.

* Regarding the small "th" after the date, Dr. Bouffard told me that it was possible to order specialty keys that would duplicate the automatic miniaturization completed by word processors after a numerical date, but it was certainly not standard, and wouldn't make a lot of sense in a military setting. "That by itself, while suspicious, is not impossible, but in conjunction with the (font irregularity of the) number four, it is really significant," he said.

* Dr. Bouffard said that signature analysis isn't that relevant because the signature could have easily been copied and pasted onto one of the photocopied forgeries from another document.

* He said that he didn't know who CBS contacted to verify the document's authenticity, but that there is really only one other man that may be more qualified to determine authentic typefaces than himself. I think that the burden of proof may be on CBS to reveal this information.

I asked him to put a percentage on the chances that this was a fake, and he said that was "hard to put a number on it." I then suggested "90%?" Again he said it's "hard to put an exact number, but I'd say it's at least that high, sure. I pretty much agree that that font is Times New Roman."

I hesitate to render verdicts, but based on an initial visual analysis by one of the country's foremost forensic document analysts that specializes in old typefaces, it looks like CBS was duped.

UPDATE: Apologies for the hasty error on Dr. Bouffard's first name - it's Philip.


Posted by Bill at 02:41 PM | TrackBack (37)

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Ya know...I never really thought that the liberals would sink this low. But then again, it isn't really surprising, given the fact they are despirate for ANY way to win, even if it's playing dirty.

If someone wanted to REALLY make it authentic, you CAN find typewriters from back then. My grandfather has one that is from 1968 that still works. He doesn't use it anymore, but you would think that whoever was despirate enough to do this, would have put more planning into it. But then again, it is better that they didn't.

 

[insein]

Desperation breeds insanity. The dems grow more insane by the second.

 

[Annie]

Desperation breeds insanity. The dems grow more insane by the second.

I just came in from class, listening to radio, Sean Hannity! They took a brak for ABC News, guess what? ABC has hired 'document experts' who agree with those from INDC! They too say it appears the documents were produced by a computer, not any type of Selectric. CBS is standing by Dan Rather. LOL :read:

 

[musicman]

Here's a thought, for all you conspiracy buffs:

The Clinton crew climbs on the Kerry bandwagon, declaring that "the gloves are coming off!" Not a week later, Bush ANG records surface which are seemingly damning. The idiot LMM take the bait, Kerry&Co. jump for joy, and liberals start dancing in the street. Unfortunately, even a cursory examination of the documents exposes them as a preposterous fraud.

For the Kerry campaign, it is the final nail, driven home by none other than the Clintons themselves.

Pleasant dreams....