# Bush Documents Forged? - Typewriters in the 1970's **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 10, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847 "2004-09-10T00:11:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/141 "2004-09-15T03:54:45Z")
> [@robby](#): > > When using proportional fonts, you should properly use only [one space between sentences](http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/spaces.htm). That _is_ the rule but it results in documents that are sometimes difficult to read. Not, perhaps, in properly typeset documents but Word does a crappy job of it, leaving too little space to show the termination when one is reading quickly. What? Do you people really look at and sound out each word? You don’t skim? Evelyn Wood would spin in her grave! ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/142 "2004-09-15T04:05:57Z")
My take on the whole matter: I (unfortunately) think they are forgeries. I have 2 points to contribute, based on my 10 years’ experience in the military. 1. Despite what others have stated about military expenditures, I find it hard to believe that ANG units would spend the money on something frivolous like a proportional font typewriter for their secretary. 2. The miliary is very conservative. Even as late at 2002, when I got out, the most common computer font used was **Courier** , because that’s the font that had always been used. I used to submit Navy command instructions and letters beautifully formatted in Times New Roman, only to have the command yeoman convert them to Courier. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/143 "2004-09-15T04:20:40Z")
> [@bughunter](#): > > This [industrious blogger](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603) has extensively-cited dismissals of every fontographic claim made against the validity of the documents. > > Thus demonstrating the insufficiency of such arguments. > And then you go ahead and conclude that the documents _are_ forgeries, to which I objected. I don’t see anything in your linked site that addresses the pattern of superscripting except for some fool who thinks the pattern is inconsistent, because he doesn’t understand how Word’s superscripting algorithm works. Instead of looking for things other people have said, why don’t you carefully look at my argument and try to poke holes in it, if you can? I didn’t conclude the documents were forged because they can be reproduced using Word. I concluded the documents were generated using Word because they consistently exhibit a nonstandard feature that is peculiar to Word and that is extremely unlikely to have been coincidentally produced by a sequence of manual formatting decisions. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/144 "2004-09-15T04:26:42Z")
I think the [comments of Killian’s secretary](http://www.drudgereport.com/bushtang.htm), who was _in place_ while all this stuff was supposed to be happening, are the nail in the coffin for this little exercise in creative re-construction. My mother was an executive secretary for almost 20 years. They _know_ what’s going on. While CBS is going to have huge egg in it’s face in this scenario and Rather’s credibility as a serious journalist has taken a body blow, the truly odd/amusing thing in this little drama, is that the secretary says that the although the disputed memos are definitely forgeries, the picture they paint of the situation is more or less correct in terms of the pressure (subtle or not) being exerted re the physical exam and re-locational dispensations on behalf of GW. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/145 "2004-09-15T04:29:54Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > I don’t see anything in your linked site that addresses the pattern of superscripting except for some fool who thinks the pattern is inconsistent, because he doesn’t understand how Word’s superscripting algorithm works… I want to clarify that the typography is (obviously) inconsistent, but the pattern is consistent in that it is generated by Word’s default algorithm, which is the exact opposite of the claim that was linked, i.e. that the inconsistency was random and therefore due to human error. It is consistently inconsistent. You know what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/146 "2004-09-15T14:27:36Z")
> [@astro](#): > > …Rather’s credibility as a serious journalist has taken a body blow… Just a question: Has Dan Rather _ever_ had any “credibility as a serious journalist?” I know many conservatives hold him up as the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Liberal Media but I’ve long though everybody else sees him as a pompous windbag, a showboat more interested in his personal aggrandizement than in anything like Big “J” Journalism. He has been Geraldo Rivera without the moustache for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/147 "2004-09-15T16:03:30Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Just a question: Has Dan Rather _ever_ had any “credibility as a serious journalist?” I know many conservatives hold him up as the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Liberal Media but I’ve long though everybody else sees him as a pompous windbag, a showboat more interested in his personal aggrandizement than in anything like Big “J” Journalism. He has been Geraldo Rivera without the moustache for decades. Indeed. [http://www.ratherbiased.com/bizarre.htm](http://www.ratherbiased.com/bizarre.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/148 "2004-09-19T03:24:43Z")
[An absurdly detailed examination of the documents in question](http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm). Just another (belated) data point. Pack a bag lunch and some No-Doze. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/149 "2004-09-19T03:51:42Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > [An absurdly detailed examination of the documents in question](http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm). Just another (belated) data point. Pack a bag lunch and some No-Doze. Can’t sleep. Must keep reading. Can’t sleep. Must keep reading. Can’t sleep. Must keep r…zzzzzz. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/150 "2004-09-19T05:03:13Z")
One more piece of information. [GOP Activist Made Allegations on CBS Memos](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20040918/ts_latimes/gopactivistmadeallegationsoncbsmemos) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/151 "2004-09-20T11:07:58Z")
Well, [CBS is backing down,](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20guard.html) finally. > [@](#): > > After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes’’ report that raised new questions about President Bush’s National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night. > > The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents’ origins. I’m shocked, shocked, to discover that there’s gambling going on here. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/152 "2004-09-20T12:37:49Z")
Personally, I think that somebody tried to pull a practical joke. But Rather is known for being humorless, & taking himself _far too seriously._ He swallowed it hook, line & sinker. Gunga Dan got whooshed. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/153 "2004-09-20T14:46:02Z")
In the discussion in this thread, it looks like proportional-spaced typewriters of the 1970s had a small set of letter spacings to choose from (like four). Different width letters would have one of these four widths, like 1 for “i” up to four for “W”. It seems to me that the key test, to see if this letter was typed on an IBM Executive or MS Word, would be to look at the placements of words at the end of the lines, comparing them to the placement of words on the line before and the line after. If letter spacing on a typewriter has only four values, while MS Word has some much larger resolution to place letters, then by the time you get to the end of a line, those differences would accumulate, so that you would expect the words to be slightly moved left or right relative to other words at the end of their lines. But I don’t see this, and that’s one more piece of evidence for the conclusion “fraud.” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/154 "2004-09-20T16:17:30Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > When asked directly about the documents and their contents, the white house refuses to comment in any substantive fashion. Er, you might want to think through the implications of expecting people to comment on any old document (regardless of its provenance) containing some accusation. For example, by that standard we should believe that Hillary Clinton had an affair with a space alien, since she never denied the truth of the _Weekly World News_ story. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/155 "2004-09-20T19:43:09Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Er, you might want to think through the implications of expecting people to comment on any old document (regardless of its provenance) containing some accusation. > > For example, by that standard we should believe that Hillary Clinton had an affair with a space alien, since she never denied the truth of the _Weekly World News_ story. Did anybody here say anything about expecting people to comment on _any_ old document? No, the discussion is about expecting people to comment on documents that contain at least reasonable assertions and on which they were in fact asked to comment. Neither of those is true in the Hilary space affair thing. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/156 "2004-09-20T20:01:34Z")
Well, what’s true here? We now know that the memos CBS based their story on were faked, just like allegations of Hillary bedding space aliens. CBS News has finally admitted as much, thus removing this subject from the list of ones that can be properly debated. I could forge some documents that would plausibly place John Kerry at the scene of war crimes. Suppose I were to do so. Would he have an obligation to answer the charges, based on my sheets of paper? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/157 "2004-09-20T20:34:05Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Well, what’s true here? We now know that the memos CBS based their story on were faked, just like allegations of Hillary bedding space aliens. > > CBS News has finally admitted as much, thus removing this subject from the list of ones that can be properly debated. > > I could forge some documents that would plausibly place John Kerry at the scene of war crimes. Suppose I were to do so. Would he have an obligation to answer the charges, based on my sheets of paper? If they were given to him by a major news organization and he was asked for comment then it would certainly be politically wise for him to do so. And if he stated that he had no idea if they were authentic or not that would at least _sound_ like an implicit admission of guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/158 "2004-09-20T21:32:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, [CBS is backing down,](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20guard.html) finally. > > I’m shocked, shocked, to discover that there’s gambling going on here. > > - Rick Analysis revealed that they were printed on official Dukes of Hazzard stationary. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/159 "2004-09-20T22:02:07Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > For example, by that standard we should believe that Hillary Clinton had an affair with a space alien, since she never denied the truth of the _Weekly World News_ story. Damn, there goes my high regard for Space Aliens. All the women on this planet and they pick her… ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847/160 "2004-09-20T22:32:52Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Well, what’s true here? We now know that the memos CBS based their story on were faked, just like allegations of Hillary bedding space aliens. > > CBS News has finally admitted as much, thus removing this subject from the list of ones that can be properly debated. Wrong. There is plenty of independent evidence that Bush took an, uh, unconventional career path in the Guard. The questions were around long before the fake documents surfaced, and will be around long after they are forgotten. The audience demanded that CBS prove that the memos were real. They failed. The electorate is demanding that Bush prove he played by the rules when he avoided Vietnam. We’ll see how he does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-documents-forged-typewriters-in-the-1970s/263847.md?page=9)