Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Keeping Score - Any forgery allegation that hasn't been debunked?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:10 AM
Original message
Keeping Score - Any forgery allegation that hasn't been debunked?
So far:

1. "No proportional font":Flynn - thoroughly debunked

2. MS Word similarity - decently debunked - word processors made to mimic output of typewriters

3. Killians relatives - "our president" says wife

4. type spacing 13 pt:Flynn - invalid in relation to faxing/scanning/scaling

5. no zipcodes in 1973:Freeps - ROTFL!

6. Superscript not available in typewriters:Flynn - somewhat debunked?

7. No curly apostrophes in typewriters:Flynn - debunked depends on font ball

8. Font used is Times Roman:Flynn - no conclusive proof of this - there are hundreds of highly similar serif fonts. Hard to identify from low resolution of the source.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. It came from a typewriter
Look at any two letters together, like two t's, each one is struck differently. Printers print each letter perfectly.

Plus.. If someone wanted to forge these docs, they would have used a real 1970 typewriter. You can get them at the Salvation Army thrift store for $10.00.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. If you're listening to or even considering
listening to the desperate people that are putting cries of forgery out there, then you're getting sucked in by ameteur detectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ochazuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Superscript was available
I've seen that from various sources now, one of which was another document previously released about the TANG deal. It was even a mono-spaced typeface.

By the way, 'font' is a word used only in electronic typesetting. The word used in the physical world is 'typeface'. That's what I was taught anyway.

If this is a forgery, I'm sure it's another in a long line of Karl Rove's stunts.

But it's not a forgery. Come on, CBS vetted it with experts, of which there must be many. On the other hand, the detractors are all right-wing bloggers. (Who you know will attack anything that knocks bush.)

Use your common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CityDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. My only question
Is how thoroughly did CBS review these documents? How many experts did they show these documents to before going on with the story? What were their background and area of expertise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. That was three questions, not one.
I have a question: Why do you doubt the story, yourself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. CBS is a creditable news source.
They didn't get that way by being stupid. These docs were probably gone over with a fine tooth comb until they were sure it didn't have any nits.
All you're hearing is what always happens. Spin spin spin until enough sheeple are confused enough that they aren't sure what to believe anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ochazuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You have CBS News on one hand...
and web-based outfits that quote Drudge on the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. CBS "talked to four typewriting and handwriting experts"
"CBS officials insisted that the network had done due diligence in checking out the authenticity of the documents with independent experts over six weeks. The senior CBS official said the network had talked to four typewriting and handwriting experts "who put our concerns to rest" and confirmed the authenticity of Killian's signature."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9967-2004Sep9?language=printer

Does anybody know what "proportional spacing ... down the page" is?

From the same article:
"Flynn said, the CBS documents appear to use proportional spacing both across and down the page, a relatively recent innovation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. OT: Small, geeky font quibble...
"By the way, 'font' is a word used only in electronic typesetting. The word used in the physical world is 'typeface'."

Actually AFAIK the word "font", although it is now used as a synonym for "typeface" was always used in printing. A font was a complete set of metal letters for a particular typeface, including all of the different sizes, duplicates, special characters, etc. So while "typeface" is more accurate and sounds better, the word "font" does have a basis in printing and is a reasonable description of the package (formerly chunks of lead but now a digital file) that contains a particular typeface. "Typeface" being the actual design and "Font" being the real world delivery format. Please forgive the off-topic, super geeky nature of this post :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Thank You For Knowing The Difference!
I am a former professional typographer (not desktop, but the real thing) and you just saved me a lot of typing! We might be some of the few people on earth who know or care about the these terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Missing my lovely Varityper as I type
Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. please debunk this (this is the only one that I find persuasive)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemMother Donating Member (422 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. CYA--some idiot said it wasn't used until the '70s
Claimed it started during the Nixon administration. It actually originated in the '50s as a MILITARY term (from slang dictionary). Just imagine...a military guy using that expression...my GOD! I found the definition with a five-second google search (a handy function--much better than using freerepublic, drudge and newsmax as sources. I'm convinced the media reporting on this are using Drudge, just like they eventually did with the Kerry intern rumor--only the campaign is getting so ugly and ridiculous that they didn't hesitate this time).

I haven't seen this linked to yet, but this guy tried to line up the documents and ended up with what he describes as a 3D effect. I can't copy and paste it, but here's the link (scroll down). You can find anything on the Internet! Even proof that the documents DON'T line up.

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/001216.html

That's it for me on this story...

I feel like a loser for having spent so much time on this--or rather a little like Chris Matthews--obsessed with petty nonsense (this is his kind of story). I almost went to the garage to drag out my IBM selectric from the '70s with proportional spacing and, as I remember, an automatic return. My husband, a writer and a bit of a Luddite, is convinced the typed results look as good as a computer-printed page and that he should resurrect it from the mice and mothballs.

I hope the hysteria blows over by tomorrow. Can't remember how long it lasted here when Drudge broke the Kerry intern story. I think I stopped coming by for a few days -- it was as tiresome and depressing as it is now.

Thanks for the post--good to end the night on something like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stocat Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 04:20 AM
Response to Original message
11. An example of Superscript from another Bush doc
One of the 11ths has superscript from another Bush verified releases, only a year later.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henslee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
13. So now its all debunked, ball is in CBS's court to call everyone out, now.
I mean, who is this "festering boil" of an issue... hurting most right now? First inclination would be to say * but its dominance of the news cycle deprives other issues from seeing the light of day.... even on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-10-04 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
16. Missing one key point
Its not enough to show that there is a typewriter that can do proportional fonts, a typewriter that can do superscripts, and a typewriter that can do curly apostrophes.

You have to find one that can do ALL of those.

If we can show them a single typewriter that can reproduce the document exactly it will have to shut everbody up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC