Nobody has the originals. The originals could be checked for paper type, chemsitry, etc. to see when they might have been made. But I think that is done based on matching it wish info as to what kinds of paper existed when, as opposed to “dating” based on carbon decay stuff. Again, the originals don’t exist or haven’t surfaced.
Oy. Do you mean to say that it isn’t the case that CBS won’t release the originals, but that they never had them at all? Or any access to them? And they conned an “expert” into giving an opinion anyway? And Kenneth is still beaming out the same frequency, refusing to budge or acknowledge any criticism? I’m… I’m just… oy.
Liberal, In addition to what drhess said, I don’t think carbon dating is accurate enough to measure a 30 year difference.
You’re right about it being a fascinating discussion. I keep going back and forth on what I think of these documents but I love learning about and dealing with this kind of arcane information.
Oh. I guess I should have actually adressed your last post, Liberal. My understanding is that CBS does not have originals. But that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility of any kind of expert opinion. For example, if some people’s claims are accurate then an expert might be able to state that they are forgeries. They could also simply be able to state that there is nothing inconsistent with them being real, and CBS could then combine that information with whatever else it is they claim to know.
re: an IBM composer being the price of a car… Yes they were expensive, but they weren’t kept on each secretary’s desktop. The secretaries all shared one output device.
I really enjoy this whole controversy. I am a rabid Bush-hater, but I really want the truth to come out - even if it shows the docs are fakes.
What I found hysterical, however, was seeing Robert Novak demand that CBS release it’s sources. What a freakin hypocrite!!
I noticed a few more things about the superscripted abbreviations beyond what I discussed over in this here other thread. Out of the six memos, there are fifteen occurrences of ordinal numbers like “147th”. Thirteen out of the fifteen conform to the Microsoft Word default superscripting; that is, the “th” is automatically superscripted unless a space is put between the number and the abbreviation. That is, 147[sup]th[/sup], but 147 th. This automatic superscripting does not occur if you go back and add the “th” later, as a correction. The only two locations where the superscripting deviates from the Word default are in the headers of the 4 May and 1 August memos. I note that the headers are identical in these two memos and appear on no other memos than these two. Thus, the composer most likely entered the 4 May header first as “111 Fighter Interceptor Squadron”, then went back and added the “th”, yielding “111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron” (no space, no superscripting), then copied the same unsuperscripted header for the 1 August memo.
On first glance, there appear to be three additional deviations from the Word default, but further inspection shows that they are in fact consistent with Word. These are the words “1st” (no space, no superscript) appearing in the 4 May and 1 August memos in the phrase “1st Lt.” The default Word setting would superscript it as 1[sup]st[/sup], but if you look carefully at the spacing you can see that the 1 is actually a lower-case L (l). l’s are spaced much tighter than 1’s: for instance, 111th versus lllth. In Times New Roman, 1 and l are almost indistinguishable based on shape; you have to look at the spacing.
Thus, Word will not automatically superscript the “st” in “lst”, because it isn’t preceded by a numeral. It will come out exactly the way the disputed document shows.
Why did the composer use l instead of 1 in “lst Lt.”? If he learned to type a long time ago, old typewriters didn’t have a 1 key. You had to use l. But his use of l is inconsistent. He clearly uses 1 whenever he types “111th”. He only uses l when he types “lst”. Possibly he was copying Bush’s rank from some other document and thought it was really an l, or maybe he typed lst out of force of habit, but had to think about it when he typed “111th”.
Thirteen out of fifteen places the documents follow Word defaults, and the remaining two are easily explained as a single correction to a common header. These documents were composed on Word. They are either forgeries, or modern, unacknowledged transcriptions of the originals.
Madre di Cristo, this thread hasn’t been relegated to GD yet?
The only thing definitive here is the low standards for proof possessed by those who have already drawn a conclusion.
Here are some standards of proof to keep in mind:
-
A demonstration that these documents can be reproduced using Word, no matter how easily, does not prove they are modern forgeries. This also excludes “adherence to Word default” arguments.
-
Elements of “polish” on the documents, such as precise centering and margins, do not prove that the documents were made with a modern Word Processor. Do not underestimate the ability of a skilled, experienced typist with 30 years experience on her instrument to produce a polished-looking document, even for routine file memos. The original point of a word processor was to permit an unskilled person to produce a polished-looking document.
-
Suspicions based on unavailability of sources or originals for inspection are just those: suspicions. Nothing is proven by the absence of evidence.
If you ignore these standards of proof, then you are committing the very same errors in judgement and validation for which you are condemning CBS News. Without the original documents, it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to prove one way or another the authenticity of these memos.
That’s why this thread should be moved to GD.
So I tried typing the memo into Word. A couple of observations:
- The line breaks don’t match unless you put two spaces in between sentences.
- By default, Word will recognize a numbered list (like this one) and automatically indent the list. You can make it match the document, but you need to muck around with it.
Not sure what either of these mean.
The two arguments are very different. Simply showing that the documents can be reproduced using Word is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to establish that they were created on Word. Showing that the documents adhere almost perfectly to the default Word superscripting behavior, and having a simple explanation for the one exception, is very strong evidence that they were created using Word — especially since Word’s superscripting rules are typographically inconsistent and nonstandard! They are typographically inconsistent because they fail to superscript the “th” ending if there is an intervening space (shouldn’t matter) and they are nonstandard because the vast majority of professionally typeset materials do not superscript the “th” at all. We are getting into Ockham’s Razor territory here.
Except that the documents are not polished at all. For example, the use of l instead of 1, inconsistency in superscripting (hard to explain if the document was manually set, easy to explain if Word was used), sloppy spacing, inconsistent use of periods in abbreviations, sometimes spelling out an acronym and sometimes not, nonstandard rank abbreviations (1st Lt. instead of 1LT), etc. In fact, the documents look like most stuff you see made with word processors: superficially neat and clean, but full of little mistakes that show the person who made it is not an actual typist but just someone who wants to type something up.
One can only prove whether the documents released by CBS were created on Word. Even if they were, they may be exact transcriptions of original handwritten notes. The content of the disputed memos is entirely consistent with the comments of Hodges that Killian was under pressure to give Bush special treatment. If there was a forgery, there is still plenty of evidence Bush got special treatment, and anyone who thinks he didn’t is in a serious state of denial. The real implications of a forgery are who did it, how they got CBS to buy it, and what this says about the level of fact-checking in the major media.
I found that the line breaks matched exactly if I used 11.5-point type. No need to double-space the sentences. It worked for the first three memos (didn’t try the rest). In some of the memos, this is the only simple way (that I could figure out) to get the line breaks to match those in the disputed documents; adding spaces doesn’t help. 11.5-point type was most definitely unavailable in 1972.
This default is easily turned off by clicking the little button with a picture of a numbered list on it and erasing the tab that Word leaves in. A possible motivation for doing this is to preserve the left margin.
What is so hard to comprehend?
The ability to reproduce the document with Word, no matter how easily is not sufficient to prove the document in question was created with Word. Whether you “muck around” with the default settings or not does not alter the logic. Even if Word’s default behavior was to launch by opening an exact duplicate of the memo in question, it would still not be sufficient proof.
Necessary, yes. Sufficient, no.
Suspect, yes. Proof, no.
Stated as simply as possible: the fact that it is possible to “forge” the document does not prove the document a forgery. It is a necessary step in the proof, but not sufficient as a proof. It merely demonstrates that it is possible the document is a forgery.
You write at length talking about necessary evidence, but none of it, even taken en masse is sufficent. It is circumstantial and as a body is indeed suspicious, but it is not sufficient to demonstrate validity or invalidity.
What would be sufficient? I can’t think of anything that doesn’t require the original documents, or high-quality reproductions. Some things that are sufficient:
-
The original consists of toner on modern laserprinter paper.
-
The original shows real and consistent evidence of being struck by hammer-and-ribbon.
-
A high-quality reproduction, at better that 1200 DPI resolution, shows fontography features demonstrably unique to Adobe’s Times New Roman font for Windows or Macintosh.
-
Testimony by the actual secretary who typed the actual memo, backed up by physical evidence of the very typewriter she used with the very font ball used, and a demonstration of the techniques used to create the memo.
None of these things are currently available, or likely to become available.
Therefore, and this is my only conclusion, there is never going to be definitive proof one way or another of the validity of the documents. And so this discussion does not belong in GQ.
bughunter, your strict standards are admirable in a sense, but they have a downside. You, and evidently CBS, are taking an “innocent until proven guilty” attitude toward the disputed documents, which for all I know may be the journalistic status quo and may be why the public discourse is now a flood of unsubstantiated and unchallenged opinion from every dingaling in the country.
First, I said two posts ago that if Word could be used to reproduce the CBS documents, it would be necessary but not sufficient evidence of a forgery. Second, even if the documents were created using Word, they could be exact transcriptions of the originals and hence not a forgery. Third, any competent forger could easily obtain a 1972-vintage typewriter and paper and produce a hammer-and-ribbon (or more likely, a ball-and-ribbon) original. That is, unless he kind of, sort of, wanted to get caught, because maybe he had an interest in putting egg on the face of certain organizations or persons.
I think the secretary has now come forward, offering the opinion that the documents, but not necessarily the sentiments, are forged. She says she did not type them. She named the two typewriters that were in the office, one an Olympia, and the other I forget (sorry). She says she would type anything Killian needed from his handwritten notes, and then toss the notes.
As these documents are being used to attack someone, it is legitimate to demand authenticity of them. Otherwise we will be reduced to disproving anything anyone wants to print out. Kerry is the child of space aliens. Bush is really the cloned son of James Dean. Well, they could be true. You prove otherwise.
Slight highjack before this goes to great debates: anyone know of any good books about forgeries?
This industrious blogger 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.
YPOD, do you have a cite? Testimony by a secretary that she does not remember creating the documents is not sufficient either. In fact, it doesn’t even prove she didn’t type them herself, since testimony based on three-decade-old human memory is among the most demonstrably fallable categories of evidence allowed in courtrooms.
And finally, I want to know what Kibo thinks…
To recap:
•Fake documents
•Accurately describe Bush’s service (or lack therof)
If true, this explains nicely the president’s continuing refusal to address the issue. It also suggest that the real documents are out there somewhere, perhaps in the hands of CBS’ source.
When I learned to type in high school, (1971,non-electric typewriter) we were REQUIRED to put two spaces in between sentences. The rule was–hit the space bar once between words, twice after a period at the end of a sentence.I still do.
la]When I learned to type in high school, (1971,non-electric typewriter) we were REQUIRED to put two spaces in between sentences. The rule was–hit the space bar once between words, twice after a period at the end of a sentence.I still do.
[/QUOTE]
Regarding your last statement, chappachula, forgive me for jumping on my soapbox:
When using proportional fonts, you should properly use only [url=“http://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/spaces.htm”]one space between sentences[/een sentences[/
Regarding your last statement, chappachula, forgive me for jumping on my soapbox:
When using proportional fonts, you should properly use only one space between sentences.
Well, that was bizarre…
The last post previewed fine. 