Gaudere: Are you using Word on the Mac or the PC? I tried it and got much better results. Maybe there are different versions of Word that are slightly different? I’m using Office 2000 on the PC.
No, really, dude. One of the things I am expert at is valley speak, said expertise being developed through watching “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” fifteeen times in a row while in the throes of a major sugar rush from drinking too many Super Big Gulps. Watch…
Dude, what the bloggers are saying is that these memos are bogus. And if the lefties don’t get some cool righteous new sources, they’ll just be bogus too. <thwack> Hear that? That’s my skull! I’m so wasted!
I’m sure you know this, Sam, but it bears repeating for it appears you [momentarily] forgot.
It’s extremely important for a crack investigator such as yourself to maintain their cool at all times. Now, I realize that due to your innate modesty I’ve made you a tad uncomfortable with my rather lavish praise of your capacities and astounding scope of knowledge. I understand and I apologize, for it wasn’t my intention to rankle your steely resolve – or anything else for that matter. However, I also felt it needed to be said. I mean, all those hours of free work for on behalf of your country and your leader is simply admirable. Surely Mr Bush will move you closer to Quebec for his next term in office.
In any event, I’ve noticed that you’ve (unintentionally, of course) failed to reply to the non-flattering part of my post. You know, the “non-turd” part, to use your parlance. The one that refutes John Calhoun’s claim about seeing Great Misleader at the time that he said he did. 'cause, you know, official records indicate that he wasn’t and the WH can clear it up either. Clearly doing something of much greater import for his country such as balancing the Colombian/US trade deficit. But still…Calhoum, a Bush voter in 2000, appears to have discredited himself through his own testimony.
Ironic, isn’t it, that you’re attempting to do the same with the newfound evidence?
BTW, please send my regards to that other crack investigator, Jerome R. Corsi, should you happen to run into him anytime soon.
TTFN
I’m using msword 2002 on PC. I doubt they’d change the kerning for Times New lightly, though! And the centering does show that the original is not perfectly centered, assuming the one I did is. Note how the left letters are aligned on both versions, but the right doesn’t match up. If it was centered in MS word and just the kern was off, the words would move in to the right a bit to keep the centering. So I would say the original was not perfectly centered. Also, the letters in “P.O. Box” appear different; the kern is notably tighter in the Word type and the O and B are taller. Hell, the letter’s font may not even be times new roman, there’s a lot of serifed fonts. It does match pretty damn close on most of the letters, though, and we’re working with crappy copies.
I simply sincerely hope that CBS’ two doc experts were not taken in by something printed on MS word. They saw the originals, right? They should easily be able to tell the different between a typewritten doc and a printed one; I could tell! If they are fakes I am thinking it has to be more sophisticated than that, so all this noodling around with Word I think is essentially useless, and when someone says it matches right up I have to check it out.
Also, funny: http://www.dailykos.com/images/admin/KillianMemo.jpg
A review of President Bush’s Guard years raises issues about the time he served
More at source. Great Misleader’s service sounds less than ‘honorable’ by the minute.
Gaudere: CBS has said that they have not seen originals. They were given copies. They claim that their copies are in better shape than the ones on the net “which have been repeatedly FAXed and downloaded”, which is idiotic. First, the documents on the net came from CBS’s own site. Why would they repeatedly copy the documents before scanning them and making them a PDF? Wouldn’t they use the best copy they had? And of course, ‘repeatedly downloading’ the files does nothing to their quality. A smokescreen.
Meanwhile…Another expert weighs in on the forgery. This one has some new and compelling evidence - he points out that Word uses a form of pseudo-kerning by default, using Microsoft’s own unique spacing algorithm, and this spacing matches the document as closely as its possible to tell given its condition.
There are just far too many coincidences here. Sure, it’s possible that the secretary just happened to pick centering spacing that exactly matched Word’s. Sure, it’s possible that the typewriter’s margins happened to be exactly the same as the Word defaults. Sure, it’s possible that the typewriter in question had a special ‘th’ key, and that the ‘th’ superscript exactly matched the Word version. Sure, it’s possible that the line heights of the 30 year old typewriter happen to exactly match Word’s.
But the odds of ALL of this occuring beggars belief.
Redfury: I have no idea about Calhoun’s recollection not matching the pay records. Since the second witness says that Bush and Calhoun went to the paymaster to straighten out problems with Bush’s pay, maybe they are related. Or maybe the Guard’s records aren’t that accurate. Or maybe Calhoun doesn’t remember the dates as well as he thought. Or maybe he’s a liar, and so is the new witness. Dunno. What I do know is that you guys are engaging in some awfully fishy evaluations of the evidence. A single witness against Bush gets the star treatment (i.e. Turnipseed), and for four years now you guys have been picking apart Bush’s guard record trying to find a smoking gun and have come up with very little. But you’re still sure of what you believe. In the meantime, 254 decorated veterans come forward against Kerry, including 17 people who have signed affidavits that they personally witnessed egregious behaviour by Kerry. THESE people are instantly dismissed as Republican stooges and liars. Two guard members come forward with eyewitness accounts of seeing Bush on the base, and they are liars too. Is that about it?
Do you have the cite that the experts did not get the originals? I’m afraid I have not followed this all that closely. Thanks.
But it doesn’t, and it isn’t–not in my experiments. I just showed that! And you did not post an example. So why repeat this argument to me? (The margins did not match, I adjusted them til they did. But it’s not outrageous to think that a person using Word OR a typewriter would do so, but the kneejerk “they match Word exactly” is NOT true, from my tests. They don’t match Word’s deafults.)
It didn’t match when I checked it. And his examples, show things that do not match…the 7 is well dropped in the original in the 187th doc, a characteristic of typewriters. The 1 has a much stronger serif, the 8 a much smaller top loop. This guy’s qual’s seem inflated, personally; I have worked in typesetting, any moron can create a font, and he doesn’t show examples of his replicated doc or how he did it. He doubts Times New existed in 1970s!?! When someone says “I replicated this perfectly!” but doesn’t show us, as you’ve noticed I have my doubts. 
If he knew fonts, he would not have unconditionally accepted those “187th” as being the same. They’re notably different! Finding a match for an unknown font is a tricky business–so many are damn close but for a teeny bit here and there–and requires a close attention to miniscule details. I’ve had to figure out the original font used in docs later, and I wouldn’t have accepted such a poor match as being the same. Maybe it’s just corruption, but they really don’t seem a perfect match. Close, yeah, but not enough to say. Tell me the font/point and show me the overlay so I can see it myself!
Well, Sam. It all depends on what the actual truth is, doesn’t it?
Eh, this whole “drag out any witnesses who support my position, regardless of how hard they’ve already been debunked, and hope nobody notices” is all old hat for our pal Sam.
Anyone who needs proof of this is welcome to go re-read that whole Swift Bullshitters for Bush thread for more examples than you can throw a grenade at.
What the hell is wrong with everybody? I’ve already re-reported what davidm pointed out in post #150, but no one seems to have understood that his source thereby has established that the documents in question could NOT have been written in Word or any other computer word processor! The numeral “4” as seen in the memos DOES NOT EXIST in the computerized Times New Roman font!
Sheesh!
So please shut the hell up with all the utterly discredited “Word” business!
The documents may be forgeries (though I doubt it), but they were undeniably NOT made using Word!
Y’know, Ambushed, just because DailyKos days something does not make it true. I just typed a ‘4’ in TNR on my computer at 72 pt so it was nice and big. Then I looked at the ‘4’ in the documents, blown up to equal size. It looks like the same font to me, within the limits of the resolution and noise in those documents. Why don’t you try it for youself?
Oy vey.
Although the jury in my head is still out, I’m leaning toward the “forgeries” theory on this, which depresses me. I hate it that folks on my side of the issues engage in such shittiness.
Daniel
I wonder if CBS would be hot on the investigative trail, full of righteous indignation, IF the documents they were given had been critical of Kerry rather than Bush. THAT would be a great 60 minutes piece. But alas —
It seems to me to be exactly the opposite.
The reason that they ran with the piece without adequately vetting the documents is that it attacked Bush. And the guy who allegedly wrote the stuff is conveniently dead, and unable to blow them out of the water with a simple “Don’t be idiotic - I never wrote anything of the sort”. And now, just when they were practicing keeping a straight face and saying about the SW Veterans for Truth, “We would never descend to such things!”, this happens.
Poor 60 Minutes - they were hoping to single-handedly reverse the trend of the election. Now their only hope is to stonewall and hope to convince people that the egg on their face is really a facial mask for the bags under Morley Safer’s eyes. And they can’t cover the “Unfit to Command” book or the Swift Boat stuff for fear of giving it more publicity.
Wanna bet they are combing the Texas court records, feverishly looking for another DUI? A domestic abuse complaint? Something? Anything?
Regards,
Shodan
This is hilarious. The military has no problem buying $500 hammers but would balk at an expensive typewriter?
CBS stands by their story. They claim their sources are unimpeachable and are not basing their story merely on the memos. These same memos were released by the White House. Would they release memos that they thought were fraudulent?
The trouble is, the official military records on Kerry speak only of bravery and heroism.
We’ve seen for months the Swift Boat Liars For Bush contradict the official records that several of them signed off on, they’ve contradicted what they said about Kerry in prior years, and they have demonstrable financial links to the Bush campaign. Now all of a sudden, when a respected news organization with no ties to the Kerry campaign releases what they believe are legitimate documents this is some evil conspiracy? This is sort of like a boxer that has been hitting his opponent below the belt crying foul when the opponent lands a clean blow.
No we agree. That’s what I meant – in my own awkward way. If these documents had been critical of Kerry and if the evidence indicated that CBS had been duped, I suspect CBS would have very publicly taken up the cross and went out in search of the ultimate culprit – and doing it all in a much publicized 60 Minutes series. The great crusader, 60 Minutes, exposing the evil behind the fraud, with shots of Nixon interspersed.
Robert Novak on CBS revealing its confidential sources:
If these documents are shown to be frauds — than what journalistic purpose is served by maintaining the confidentiality of the ultimate source?
Oh migod. Irony is truly dead.
Agreed. Let’s ask Valerie Plame what she thinks.