Why are so many DUers siding with Fox and MSNBC on the memos?

[Onlooker]

CBS did a fine job responding to those who doubt the memos are real. CBS brought forth handwriting experts, debunked claims that the fonts weren't available in 1972, debunked claims that proportional spacing wasn't available in 1972, brought forth witnesses who knew Killian and said the memos rang true. No one has found any content or style discrepancy in the memos. There is not another set of memos that says something different. The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming that the memos are real. Why are some DUers doubting them? The same logic being used to question the memos can be used to question any document that's 30 years old.

[zoeb]

1. not me...

The most telling thing about the story is White House not calling the memos fakes. They call it yellow journalism, blamed Kerry, and now they want to talk about the issues. They're afraid to push CBS on their source. They leave it up to the bloggers to drive the forgery story.

This is from ABC:
The White House is declining to comment on the veracity of the documents. Many Democrats are worried that if they are found to be forgeries, it will be a setback for Sen. John Kerry's campaign to defeat Bush in November.

It would be in the best interest of the White House to denounce these memos as fake...

[Judi Lynn]

26. Good point. Their silence speaks volumes, doesn't it? n/t

[jimbot]

2. I can only answer based on my doubts.

I too, did the MS Word doc test and was fairly impressed by the similarities. I personally think the content was true but the CYA document may have been created on a word processor.
The thing that CBS, or anyone else for that matter, could do to remove all doubt would be to dig up an old Executive Typewriter with the Times Roman or Times New Roman font and recreate the CYA memo -- then put the results on the web or air them on TV. Surely with CBS's resources they could do this and lay the issue to rest. It would not need to be a perfect match, just close enough (note that the MS Word document versions that I've seen on the web and have created myself qualify as close enough).
It really boggles my mind that this hasn't been done (then again, I really don't care that much about the issue and haven't been searching google to find out if it has).
Please note, if you state that this has been done, please post a link for me.
--JT

[Red State Rebel]

3. I agree, why hasn't someone done this already??

You know there has to be a few of these machines around somewhere. It would go a long way if they would just post the proof.

[gratuitous]

6. Here's a link

Someone did do a side-by-side comparison:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp

I would be interested in comments from the "why don't we see a comparison" folks.

[Nederland]

14. List of problems

The side-by-side comparision in your link does not address the major issues being raised by those claiming the documents are fake:

1) There is no smaller font 'th' in the PC Mag example.
2) There is no analysis of kerning.

Until somebody addresses these points (especially #2) I'm of the opinion that the documents were faked.

Flame on.

[Onlooker]

18. Why

What analysis of kerning are you looking for? Fonts have default kerning that I believe is defined as part of the font set. Are you saying that you think someone messed with the default kerning values (in Word) to create the memo you regard as fake? Why would they do that? What evidence do you have?

As far as the 'th' goes, in the link I posted, the expert says "that everything from corporate logos - to the 'th' superscript - were often accommodated on typewriters of that era."

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/bush-national-guard-memo.html

[Nederland]

21. Kerning problems

This is what concerns me:

http://www.houseofthedog.com/2004/09/psuedokerning.html

[gratuitous]

22. Very sophisticated

And you can tell from the PCMag side-by-side which one has true kerning and which one has "pseudo" kerning? I've worked on Selectrics, Copywriters and Mag Card machines up through the most advanced and sophisticated word processors of today, and I can't tell just by looking.

But I'm supposed to believe that some "independent" forensic document analyst, with deep ties to the Bush administration can? Must be the "R" on the voter registration card that allows such vision!

[Nederland]

23. PC Mag is irrelevant

Its the original CBS document that matters. As my link demonstrates, it displays clear evidence of psuedo kerning. The IBM Composer didn't do psuedo-kerning. Until I see a typewriter that can reproduce every artifact the CBS document has I'm skeptical.

[gratuitous]

27. Ah, so an element of proof doesn't interest you?

Just so I know.

And what precisely about the CBS documents proves to you beyond any doubt that they are "pseudo" kerned? Please include reproductions from the documents themselves, as well as the detailed settings in Word you used that will produce the exact same results.

[Nederland]

37. Why do you say that?

It makes absolutely no sense to view the PC Mag document as more important than the CBS document.

[Onlooker]

35. There are ways this could happen on a typewriter

When a typewriter is overused, its letters got very dirty and sometimes bent or misshapen. It's perfectly possible that some of the so-called pseudokerning is simply an illusion created by a combination of dirt and type bars (letters) slightly out of alignment.

In addition, I'm not so sure it's impossible to build in this kind of kerning into a proportional spaced typewriter. If you look at the shapes of the letetrs, clearly the 'y' can be designed to extend into the area of the preceding character without causing problems for any other leters, and the same holds true for the letters 'p.'

[Nederland]

38. Agreed

But the type of wear you describe is unlikely on a ball type typewriter that is being put forth as the likely machine. The biggest problem here is that CBS refuses to release the originals (or the closest thing they have) for analysis.

[Onlooker]

47. At least one expert doesn't think it was typed on a ball typewriter

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/bush-national-guard-memo.html

Obviously, there are many ways to replicate something so that it's 90% like the original. It can be done on typewriters, on computers, and on dedicated word processors. But, the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest the memos are original. Some people keep finding new questions to raise, but all these questions could probably be raised about any document.

So, to me the question is: Why would someone go through the trouble of forging this stuff? If you're going to forge something, might as well go all the way and forge a reference to Bush doing drugs or showing up drunk.

[Nederland]

48. Answer

So, to me the question is: Why would someone go through the trouble of forging this stuff?

Ask Karl Rove.

[Onlooker]

50. I doubt it

This issue has done Bush no more good than the Swift Boat Liars did for Kerry. We're seeing it from a Democratic viewpoint, but I think a lot of independents and even Republicans are simply seeing more issues with Bush's record of service in the NG. They might think the memos are forged, but they're also thinking that Bush made a mess of his work in the NG. This issue is playing out in favor of Kerry, but not in a big way.

[CityDem]

56. CBS could clear this up very quickly

Any doubt about the authenticity of these documents would be eliminated if CBS produced the original memos for document experts to review. Until this step is taken by CBS, there will be doubts.

[Onlooker]

8. Here's an excellent link that explains a few things

It's not exactly what you're looking for, but does offer some very good info:

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/bush-national-guard-memo.html


"While many are speculating that if it is authentic, it would have been typed on an early model IBM Selectric (with a golf ball type element), Mr. Riegert contends that the words/letters are too uneven, and would probably have been typed on an older model IBM Executive series (photo right), possibly a Model C that was manufactured in the early 1960s.

"The IBM Executive typewriters were top-of-the-line machines of their day that featured proportional spacing and typebars (as opposed to ball elements), and were a big hit with the executive offices of the military and larger businesses.

...

"Mr. Riegert could not offer an opinion either way on the memo's authenticity, but did confirm that typebars and keys were routinely customized in those days, and that everything from corporate logos - to the 'th' superscript - were often accommodated on typewriters of that era."

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[librechik]

41. they have the originals--they know they were typed on a typewriter

(which leaves a pressure mark) not an ink jet.

That was right off the top--THEY WEREN'T MADE IN WORD!!!

So. So what, you can go into word and make something that looks like what you saw on the web.

That means nothing. Without the originals, the RNC "experts" COULD NOT MAKE A PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT ON THE SOURCE. Yet, they happily did anyway, spewing their unprofessional and unconscionable remarks all over the internet.

THEY TOO KNOW NOTHING.

YOUR DOUBTS MEAN NOTHING.

We don't even care about the documents. We only want to know if they accurately reflect the facts of Bushie's absence from the guard. And guess what? They won't say. They tell you to talk to the Pentagon, but have told the Pentagon not to talk about it.

What are they hiding?

[gratuitous]

4. Because advertising works

Those big companies don't spend billions trying to get you to eat their hamburgers or wear their jeans or see their movie because seeing the same message over and over, day after day doesn't work. They know they'll see increased sales if they hit consumers over the head hard enough and often enough.

Same things work for Republicans. The Swifties got three weeks of uninterrupted smearing and lie promotion; the very real memos detailing what was in part already known about Stupidhead's desertion weren't even in public 48 hours before the might Republican Wurlitzer was cranked up and telling everyone for days on end that the memos were patent forgeries. Naturally, they can't prove that the memos are forgeries, but by relentless, endless harping on the same two or three irrelevant or discredited points, they persuade even a lot of people who should know better.

[jimbot]

9. I consider myself "someone who should know better"

But I am simply not convinced of the authenticity of the CYA document. I feel that the contents and the comments represent something that actually did happen but I haven't seen an actual reproduction using a typewriter. Furthermore, I have seen valid explanation of the anomalies between an MS Word recreation and the pdf files on the CBS web site (e.g., the superscripted th displays slightly higher on a screen capture than a printout).
I think that there are three potential reasons why the Bush campaign hasn't commented on the documents:
1. They are indeed authentic.
2. The statements are true but the authenticity is suspect (could open up a can of worms trying to argue this).
3. They were responsible for the forgery and it was a ruse to take the issue of the table -- no need to argue them, the media is doing it in public.

At this point, I would need direct scientific evidence (i.e., a reproduction) to alter my thinking. Telling me that typewriters had the ability to do proportional spacing and scripting is different than showing me a repro.

Sorry to differ from my brethren on this one.

--JT

[gratuitous]

11. Did you go to the link I posted above?

They have a MS Word 2000 document side-by-side with one created on an IBM typewriter, early 1970s vintage. Let me know, just by looking at the two, whether you can definitively tell the difference between them, and determine which one is which. The answer is down at the bottom of the article.

[asjr]

12. I used an IBM selectric for years and years. I believe Dan Rather.

CBS is a powerful organization. They would not risk their reputation by giving false information.

[Steely_Dan]

40. I totally agree!!!!

Why would CBS take such a huge risk without first covering every possible detail of this story????

-P

[jimbot]

13. Well heck, after seeing post 6, I am willing to admit...

That I may have been wrong (I'm a stubborn person so full wrongness admits will only come with the repro I requested :) )
That was the first technically compelling argument that I have seen (although I wish the author would have reproduced the document in question).
My position has now shifted from:
1 - the documents were probably fakes but the content was real enough.
to
2 - the documents are, indeed, probably real (as is the content).

Thank you for enlightening me gratuitous.
Apologies for being stubborn...but I'll take it all back if someone proves they are forgeries :)

--JT

[gratuitous]

16. Hey, I thought I was mistaken once, too

Turns out I was wrong about that, but I don't have any problem with folks who say what they think. I'm glad the side-by-side was available to persuade you.

Now, let's go get those Bush bastards!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Has anyone seen the top of my head.

I think it jetisoned in the middle of reading this op-ed piece.

From William Safire's article about the memos:

"The Associated Press focused on the suspicion first voiced by a blogger on the Web site Freerepublic.com about modern "superscripts" that include a raised th after a number. CBS, on the defense, claimed that "some models" of typewriters of the 70's could do that trick, and some Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House included it."

"To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition. Nor is any angry demand that others prove them wrong acceptable, especially when no original documents are available to prove anything."

To cite the Freepers and then invoke the journalistic integrity of Edward R. Morrow ... Oh lord, help me, I hear hoofbeats. Armageddon! Dogs and cats living in sin! Mass hysteria!

[SpiralHawk]

58. Arma-frikkin-geddon ! Oh no, not that

Remember the Freeper Motto:

"Don't change Horsemen in the middle of an Apocalypse."

[JI7]

7. you assume all "DUers" oppose Bush

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. AMEN to that.

Not meaning to "point the finger" at anyone in particular or anything, LOL...

[Judi Lynn]

28. It's wrong to assume all DU'ers are DU'ers! Know what I mean?

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

[xcmt]

15. Argh.

I continue to be astounded by the people that apparently are surprised by the fact that two typing implements using the precise same typeset would create a document with letters and spacing that looks identical.

It's a typeset. It has rules for letter size and position and spacing. These things don't change. Times New Roman on Microsoft Word looks exactly the same as Times New Roman in OpenOffice or Lotus Notes or whatever program you feel like using. Which, coincidentally, looks precisely (or close enough, excepting 4) like Times New Roman on a typewriter. It's supposed to look the same.

[WI_DEM]

17. Their authentic, but unfortunately no one is listening

Unlike the Swift Boat Ads it appears that the media has discredited this story enough through its induendo that no one cares--except us partisans.

[Steely_Dan]

42. My Exact Feeling!

This has been so muddled up that it is impossible to get the truth out. It's sad...damn sad.

-P

[Awsi Dooger]

19. They play dirty, so nothing is as it seems

Summarizing a common paranoia, not my own.

If Bush suddenly demanded 6 standup debates, there would be one thread after another suspicious of his motives, a diabolical Rove conning us into his web.

[AmerDem]

20. Most of those who"sided" are now "tombstoned"

They were freeper invaders hoping to do everything they could to stop a snowball rolling down hill!

[bigdogblues]

24. What were the handwriting experts used for?

A signature can not be determined to be authentic unless they have the original document which CBS has said they don't have. Can someone help explain this?

[Judi Lynn]

30. If you're not going to listen, and try to understand, as the rest of us

must do, simply to make it from day to day, you really shouldn't expect others to explain to you what you should be bright enough to grasp yourself.

Some people have too much time on their hands.

[bigdogblues]

33. Sorry but that makes no sense to the question I posed

How can a copy of a signature be verified to be real?

[bobbyboucher]

36. How can a document ten times removed from the original,

tell you anything about validity? It can't. The burden is on you, sammy. CBS has a sourde and a lot of questions to go with it. You got jackshit.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigdogblues]

43. Why not ask bobbyboucher? His profile is hidden too

As for first posts, where is the correct place to first post? Where was your first post and was it correct? I've been reading for months and decided to join in the fun.

Why the attack for asking a simple honest question? Should first posts be statements rather than questions? Is this in the rules somewhere and which one am I breaking?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigdogblues]

49. My email address is open to send me mail

Please feel free to use it. A person can't have too many clues.

[EST]

25. This issue was killed,dead, right here on DU.

More than a dozen threads and thousands of posts have run the thing into the ground. Do a DU search and plan to spend quite a number of hours reading and working out the details, if you want. most of us are satisfied and pretty tired of the whole thing.

The biggest portion of doubters is the under forty crowd, many of whom seem to feel that technology sorta sprang up, full blown, sometime in the nineteen eighties. Old fogies, like myself, are pretty well aware of the capabilities of the equipment available and we have the working knowledge of the fact that typewriters were perfectly capable of producing exactly what we all saw. The real problem, I feel, after taking a read or two over at FR as well as a few other of the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" web sites, is that people, for the most part are either too lazy or too frightened to pay attention to anything that might conflict with what they want to be true.

My own experience includes many years working for IBM, followed by many more years working on IBM and competitive equipment but for other companies. The problem here is that many people are very nervous because of the threat imposed by the prospect of more time for these megalomaniacs to continue to destroy the world and us, complicated by an army of infiltraters sneaking in and doing a "Judy Woodruff" right in the middle of the floor and distracting good folks from the discussion.

I, myself, am so frustrated and frankly pissed off by the constant demonstrated lack of desire to look around at the trees in this particular forest demonstrated by so many, as well as the understandable desire to leap into print and be stroked by other, more thoughtful, folks who come to their rescue and spoon feed them with the facts as I am doing right now.
(Rant over) Go. Search. Look at the evidence. Need any more details after educating yourself, there are any number of folks willing to help.

The military had lots and lots of money and always bought the very best. Virtually all the best could do anything you needed just as well as can be done today, albeit a little more mechanically and requiring a little more skill and knowledge than is required by the state of today's technology.

In those days, we did not need a hammer and chisel, carving on stone tablets, in order to get things done. Please, people, don't allow yourself to be confused by the manure spreaders who try to mess up the landscape of the truth. Be skeptical, but open minded enough to accept clear evidence when it is presented, and don't be afraid to click the ALERT button when you smell the stench of a disrupter-then let the moderators decide.
Thanks for your attention!
I am so thankful for this DU forum and the intelligent, dedicated people who give so generously of their time to make it all work. My hat is off to you!

[Steely_Dan]

44. Well Stated

Thanks....

-P

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. You're assuming that they're DUers

a lot of them are paid disruptors or trolls with a lot of time on their hands.

[EST]

45. Yep!

Allright-who was using that can of troll spray last? I saw it around here somewhere. (fumble, mumble) Pssst--Fssst--oh damn that was the bullshit detector! Where, where? (sigh- here we go again) Teehee

[Kathy in Cambridge]

46. Yep-my Bullshit Detector is on Elevated this week!

who did have that Troll Spray jpeg. It was funny!

[George W. Dunce]

51. OMG

You can produce the same document with Word!!!! Shit does Bill Gates know this? That would be a great selling point for Word, create documents that look just like the ones your company has been producing for 100 years. Man I think we are on to something here. <SARCASM>

[EST]

55. Well spoken

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[EST]

53. Yeh, I saw it.

Don't have it, but I do have the Freeper-splat! hammer but I'm not quite sophisticated enough to know how to post it.

[TheWebHead]

52. why?

For me it's pretty simple, I don't want to walk off a cliff with Dan Rather, and neither do most Democratic leaders who aren't using this story in their arsenal. Whether you think the documents are fake or not, and I believe they are, they were not obtained from Killian's family and they weren't obtained through military channels. Also, CBS has said they don't have the original documents. To me, that cloud make the story non-reportable to begin with. It's also fair to ask why Rather didn't go to Killian's family to get their take on documents that would be questioned.

[RetroLounge]

54. I don't think very many "DU'ers" are, ya know?

RL

[dave502d]

57. Why

If it not a lie they don't know how to except it