# More Missing Nat. Guard Documents **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 6, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303 "2004-09-06T04:09:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/161 "2004-09-11T04:29:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Really? I have here a document that says that Apos killed Vince Foster. Actually, I don’t have the original. Whooo, I’m Sam Stone. I have an analogy! Actually, it’s not much of one, but hey, whatever! Rather’s defense isn’t what you claim it is. It consists of: -the assertion that nothing in 1972 could have produced such a document (the primary case for forgery) is simply false -there are multiple confirmatory sources on this information beyond the documents themselves (Hodges is one of these) -they cite Robert Strong, an National Guard administrative officer who knew Killian as affirming that the documents are real, even given the criticisms that have been raised -they cite the fact that the White House has, in two days now, not moved to deny anything about the CONTENT of the documents They would have every right to do so if the documents contained false information. But they have been silent on that issue. given this, you were being misleading when you said that "it boiled down to, “Well, since some typewriters could make one of the strange things in this letter, the case is closed.” Further, it has been established that MSWord did/could not have produced the document, at least not the normal Word we all have on our computers. Your assertion that things in the documents are “strange” is further problematic. Strange is based on what is normal, and its exceedingly clear that few people know what normal is in this situation. If Killian had a typewriter that could produce such documents, then nothing in them is strange at all. And indeed, CBS and others have established that the claims of “strangeness” are in part based on false understanding of what sort of typewriters were available. Indeed, the original claims which started this were that proportional-width fonts didn’t exist on typewriters in 1972, which provged to be laughably wrong. Yet that is part of what makes people call the pw font “strange.” So is the claim that Times New Roman wasn’t available until after the 70s. Which is also wrong: the typeface was available on typewriters since 1931. The Killian signature matches. I would also like to think that CBS’ and Rather’s reputation is worth SOMETHING here. They seem pretty darn convinced by much more than just the memos themselves, whatever “unimpeachable sources” means. I’m afraid Sam Stone attempting to make a snarky point to defend someone even he knows is a chronic dissembler doesn’t have the same credibility. The silence of the Bush camp on the actual truth of content is, as I said, probably the most damning public reason to think that the contents are genuine. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/162 "2004-09-11T04:31:52Z")
Hodges says CBS mischaracterized him, and his account sounds more like the scenario Stone outlined: [http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted\_Now.html](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/NotedNow/Noted_Now.html) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/163 "2004-09-11T05:33:34Z")
I haven’t really been following this thread too much, do I hesitate to just barge in. If this [cite](http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=256) from [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) has already been posted, my appologies. > [@](#): > > Update: Documents May Be Forgeries > 09.10.2004 > > Serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of four documents that CBS News said it had obtained from the personal files of Bush’s former squadron commander in the Texas Air National Guard. We are removing reference to them in our September. 8 article on the “Texans for Truth” ad until these questions are settled to our satisfaction > > The four memos were purportedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, dated May 2, 1972, May 19 , 1972, August 1, 1972 and August 18, 1973. Killian died in 1984. CBS News didn’t say how it had obtained the documents, but said it had was satisfied they were authentic after consulting experts. The White House did not question the documents when it released copies to reporters after obtaining them from CBS. > > Subsequently, members of Killian’s family said they suspected the documents weren’t authentic, and experts quoted by conservative websites and mainstream news organizations said the documents could not have been produced by the typewriters in common use in the early 1970’s. The memos contain proportional spacing, in which the letter “i” occupies less space than the letter “m,” for example. And they contain the “superscript” character “th” (in “Report to111th F.I.S. administrative officer” in the May 2 memo, for example.) A feature of modern computer word-processing programs such as Microsoft Word automatically changes “th” to superscript characters when following numerals, but such characters were impossible to produce on ordinary typewriters in use in 1972. > > Note: as of Friday afternoon, Feb. 10, CBS was still defending the authenticity of the documents and denying that it was conducting any “internal investigation” regarding them. CBS News posted a statement saying the documents “were provided by unimpeachable sources” and are “backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content.” CBS said it stands by the entire 60 Minutes report and stressed that it was not based solely on the documents. “We have complete confidence in our reporting and will continue to pursue the story.” ) > > Questions about the documents came from multiple sources: > > The Associated Press quoted Killian’s son Gary as saying he doubted his father would have written the 1973 memo which said there was pressure to “sugar coat” Bush’s performance review. “It just wouldn’t happen,” he said. “No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that.” > > The Washington Post quoted Killian’s widow, Marjorie Connell calling the documents “a farce” and saying he didn’t keep files: “I don’t think there were any documents. He was not a paper person.” She said CBS had not asked her to authenticate the records. > > The Los Angeles Times quoted Killian’s daughter, Nancy Killian Rodriguez, as saying her family knew nothing about the source of the documents. “You can imagine all this from our perspective . . . Why is a man who passed away 20 years ago being brought up on something that happened 30 years ago and what does that have to do with what’s going on in the world right now?” > > The AP also quoted the personnel chief in Killian’s unit at the time, Rufus Martin, as saying he believes the documents are fake: “They looked to me like forgeries. . . I don’t think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years.” > The AP quoted independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines saying the documents looked as though they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines is a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. > > The Washington Post story quoted another document expert, William Flynn, a forensic specialist with 35 years of experience, as saying the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques. “Although IBM had introduced an electric typewriter that used proportional spacing by the early 1970s, it was not widely used in government,” the Post said. > > The Los Angeles Times quoted Farrell C. Shiver, a Georgia-based analyst who edits a journal for document examiners, as saying that the superscript “th” would have been very unusual for that time: “You would not be able to do that with a typewriter at that time unless you had a specialty key made.” The New York Times also quoted Shiver questioning the curves in the apostrophes, but adding: “that does not prove that the documents are not genuine.” > The New York Times also quoted Philip Bouffard, a forensic document specialist from Ohio, as saying he could find nothing like the characters in the documents in a database he created of 3,000 old type fonts: “I found nothing like this in any of my typewriter specimens.” He said they were “certainly consistent with what I see in Times Roman,” a commonly used Microsoft Word font. It seems there are serious questions about the document…valid questions. Doesn’t mean the document is a forgery, but it certainly SHOULD be evaluated. I’m can only speculate as to why the WH hasn’t come out and denied the document. Either the document is real and they knew about it, or they KNOW its a fake and are giving the opposition just enough rope to hang themselves…or perhaps they are unsure if its a fake or not, so are just playing it cool until they find out one way or the other. Obviously the document will be closely examined now, so we can only wait and see what the experts have to say about it. If CBS News comes back with a retraction on this I think we can consider it case closed. If not…well, if nothing else all this controversy has taken the wind out of this. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/164 "2004-09-11T06:24:56Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Which makes no sense. If the documents can never be debunked, then that’s as good as ANY evidence ever gets. ANY document could potentially be forged, but if what they say is true, they’ve pretty well established the authenticity of the documents at this point to the degree that any documents could be. But that’s the whole point-- “if what they say is true”. Maybe my wording was sloppy, but I did not mean that “not debunked” = “true”. I meant that it is possible for serious questions to linger over the doc’s authenticity without an absolute debunking of that authenticity. If so, then it’s quite possible we will never know if they’re real or not, and so the default assumption will be that they are not (except of course for the rabid particsans who will believe anything that supports their cause). The author is dead, and unless a cridible witness from the time they were allegedly written can come forth and vouch for them, we just don’t know. Has CBS even revealed the source of the documents? It seems that would help a lot one in getting to the bottom of this thing. This is similar to the situation for dozens of art works, the authenticity of experts continue to argue. Some may even sit in museums with the artist’s name attached, but they may not be genuinely accepted in the art world as authentic. ---
**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 11, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/165 "2004-09-11T06:32:36Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Obviously a forgery. The drink stain is blue, and everyone knows GW was a whiskey man. Ah, but the KERNING man, the KERNING! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/166 "2004-09-11T06:35:30Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Obviously a forgery. The drink stain is blue, and everyone knows GW was a whiskey man. Well, whiskey and coke… ---
**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 11, 2004, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/167 "2004-09-11T06:41:11Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I haven’t really been following this thread too much, do I hesitate to just barge in. If this [cite](http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=256) from [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) has already been posted, my appologies. > … Have you seen this yet? [http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603](http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603) It seems to do a pretty good job of addressing the claims about typewriters, fonts, and MS Word. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/168 "2004-09-11T07:20:18Z")
Said it before, will say it again: Nothing to see here, folks, just a bunch of Bush apologists playing Encyclopedia Brown and appointing themselves insta-experts in late '60s typewriters… ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/169 "2004-09-11T07:33:35Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Said it before, will say it again: Nothing to see here, folks, just a bunch of Bush apologists playing Encyclopedia Brown and appointing themselves insta-experts in late '60s typewriters… It sounded pretty dumb the first time around, and repitition ain’t helping you much. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/170 "2004-09-11T07:36:36Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Have you seen this yet? I saw it earlier today, yes. It DOES do a good job of addressing many of the points. I wasn’t trying to say that [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) had all the answers…just that there seems to be some valid reasons to investigate this thing to get to the bottom of it. > [@rjung](#): > > Said it before, will say it again: Nothing to see here, folks, just a bunch of Bush apologists playing Encyclopedia Brown and appointing themselves insta-experts in late '60s typewriters… Because everyone KNOWS that [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) is in Bush’s pocket, ehe? There is reasonable doubt here rjung. Perhaps it will all check out and be verified as an authentic document. Whats the harm in looking to make sure?? If the shoe were on the other foot, would you accept such a document about Kerry, even if there were questions? Hell no…you’d be here claiming that Diebold was behind it! 🙂 -XT ---
**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 11, 2004, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/171 "2004-09-11T07:39:41Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Said it before, will say it again: Nothing to see here, folks, just a bunch of Bush apologists playing Encyclopedia Brown and appointing themselves insta-experts in late '60s typewriters… Yep, and from what I can see their claims have been pretty much debunked. The problem is that a large part of the media is now saying things like “the authenticity of the documents is being questioned”. That’s what the general public is hearing and that’s what they’ll remember. As soon as talk turns to things like “kerning”, “proportional fonts”, “superscripts” etc. their eyes will glaze over. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/172 "2004-09-11T07:39:45Z")
I think everyone should read this: [http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001518.html#1518](http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001518.html#1518) It is an article by Stirling Newberry on the left’s demand for evidence. Although I don’t completely agree with him, as most of the left-wing blogs that I read (TPM, Kevin Drum, Pandagon) have been happy to accept these as forgeries, I think that we all bear personal responsibility to use this incident to further political discourse. If these documents were about Kerry denying direct orders, then I would like to think that everyone in this thread would have the same point of view. Of course, that is not the case. But those on the left should carefully ask themselves – do you really think it is really, honest-to-god, likely that documents typeset 30 years apart on completely different platforms line up pretty much character-to-character? Though I’m no expert, as a moderate/liberal I certainly don’t, at least to the degree shown on those rightie blogs. Those on the right should ask themselves if it really matters, when so many documents go through OCR and reentry anyway. Having an MS Word document could be perfectly acceptable for a 1973 original memo. What really matters is the provenance of the letter. Nobody knows this except, apparently, CBS. At this point, you have two choices. The first is that you accept CBS’s word as a trusted news organization. They say it is real, so you must accept that. If CBS gets something like this wrong, it’s as big of a media mistake as I’ve seen in a long while. Think Al Capone’s Vault big. The second is that you are a contrarian, you don’t accept the provenance, and you come up with a theory of who is duping you. All I ask is this. Decide whether you are going to trust Big Media or you aren’t. And stick to it – be self-consistent in your beliefs despite the political data. As for me, I accept CBS’s word, as they rarely make mistakes this big and only they have the provenance. Of course if their internal audits reveal that the provenance is suspect, then I will change viewpoints (and becoming less trusting of CBS…) While I don’t believe that these documents were produced by a 1973 typewriter, I do believe they are authentic (only because CBS tells me). I believe that any logic behind a forgery is too twisted to be easily believed, with the simplest explanation being that these are reprocessed or OCR’ed materials. Don’t know what to make of the signature, though – I don’t know if it is correct practice to transplant the original signature onto OCR’ed documents. If CBS presented a similar document about Kerry tomorrow, I would accept that with the same caveats. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/173 "2004-09-11T07:52:38Z")
From today’s Salon. Sorry paid subscription only > [@](#): > > The CNS [News.com](http://News.com) story, echoed by other conservative outlets, helped sparked a debate over proportional spacing, fonts, electric typewriters and superscripts as independent typographical experts weighed in with their own doubts. Some experts contacted by the Washington Post, New York Times and Salon suggested that the raised, or superscripted, “th” in one of Killian’s memos was a telltale sign that the documents were created well after 1972. Yet independent researcher Marty Heldt notes that he had received an undisputed Bush military document in 2000 from the Vietnam era that clearly contains a superscripted “th.” He also notes that when Killian’s Aug. 14, 1973, memo is enlarged and the word “interference” is examined, it’s clear the two middle e’s rest higher on the page than the other two e’s; that is not something a modern-day word processor would likely do. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/174 "2004-09-11T08:11:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Those on the right should ask themselves if it really matters, when so many documents go through OCR and reentry anyway. Having an MS Word document could be perfectly acceptable for a 1973 original memo. To believe that, you’d also have to believe that the document was intentionally ‘aged’ to make it appear to date from the 1970’s. That’s a major deception. Doesn’t seem likely. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/175 "2004-09-11T11:09:58Z")
> [@edwino](#): > > But those on the left should carefully ask themselves – do you really think it is really, honest-to-god, likely that documents typeset 30 years apart on completely different platforms line up pretty much character-to-character? If they’re designed to have the same typeface, then yes. Typefaces are more than just character shapes; they also define the spacing between characters. The dailykos link is pretty informative on this point. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/176 "2004-09-11T12:47:56Z")
Look, all the typographic arguments made by the right to assert that these documents are forgeries have been completely discredited. (See, for example, the [dailykos](http://dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603) article). That lgf freeper’s claims actually seem pretty close to lies, since he performed so much unjustified or dubiously justified image manipulation to get his so-called “match”. Since there’s nothing of substance remaining that suggests that these documents are Word-based forgeries (or forgeries of any sort), the rational default position must be that they are genuine until proven otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/177 "2004-09-11T13:07:10Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > Look, all the typographic arguments made by the right to assert that these documents are forgeries have been completely discredited. Actually, you are wrong. I will admit that there has been a strenuous effort by people of a certain political bent to ‘completely discredit’ the documents, but that doesn’t mean the matter is resolved. It only means that one side doesn’t want to talk about it anymore. Hmmm, I wonder why?.. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/178 "2004-09-11T13:23:28Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > everyone knows GW was a whiskey man. No, he preferred vodka. It’s cheap, it hits, and your business associates, wife, and the cops can’t smell it on you. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/179 "2004-09-11T13:35:59Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Actually, you are wrong. I will admit that there has been a strenuous effort by people of a certain political bent to ‘completely discredit’ the documents, but that doesn’t mean the matter is resolved. It only means that one side doesn’t want to talk about it anymore. Hmmm, I wonder why?.. Yes, it’d be very helpful if the president or his aides were to address the truth behind the content of the documents, rather than make wild assertions as to who might be behind releasing material that may or may not be faked. The situation is eerily like that when the Abu Ghraib photos first came out, where the president repeatedly condemned the existence of the documentation, but not the substance or truth of the charges. In this case the president has personal knowledge that could lay the issue to rest for some people, yet he’s dodged the meat of matter. Forgery or not, this repeated strategy strongly suggests that the documents reflect how things happened in the TANG. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303/180 "2004-09-11T13:55:59Z")
[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity\_backed\_on\_bush\_documents/](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents/) Seems experts are leaning back toward autentic:this article cites two who had complained about the docs authenticity but have recanted once they looked further into it. The only dissenting expert in this asserts something that the Globe claims to contradictory evidence for. Here’s the key bit: > [@](#): > > Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted. > > In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 – three years before the dates of the CBS memos – the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters. > > As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos – to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron – Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer’s metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM. > > ''You can’t just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-missing-nat-guard-documents/263303.md?page=10)