PDA

View Full Version : This just in CBS may have "Fake" Docs.



JustMVG
09-09-2004, 02:28 PM
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 09, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.
Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.
The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.
The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.
But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com homed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.
"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."
The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.
But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.
"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.
"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."
Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.
"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."
He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.
"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"
The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.
"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.
"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."
But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.
"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."
According to an article on the CBS News website, the news program "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

OGShocker
09-09-2004, 02:36 PM
Not the "Clinton Bullsh it System! Really Mike?...LOL

JustMVG
09-09-2004, 02:44 PM
Carville's on a roll, hope Mary Matalin reams him on some of the shows she's going to be doing!!!

Sleek-Jet
09-09-2004, 02:54 PM
Hey Mike, who the hell is CN News??

Dave C
09-09-2004, 03:02 PM
oh how the mighty have fallen. :notam:

Schiada76
09-09-2004, 03:05 PM
If those documents are proved to be forgeries,
it will be SEARED! SEARED! into my memory and change the way I think for ever!
Could you imagine? Liberals lying, what a SHOCKER! :jawdrop:

OGShocker
09-09-2004, 03:08 PM
SHOCKER! :jawdrop:
Yes, can I help you??? :rollside:

Schiada76
09-09-2004, 03:30 PM
Why yes you can.
I need a ride in that FINE patriotic vessel!

572Daytona
09-09-2004, 03:46 PM
Of course the documents came from the files from someone who is deceased so that it can't be verified by him If they turn out to be forged I sure hope they press criminal charges against the forger. If I can go to jail for copying an MP3 file I sure as hell hope they can impose a stiff sentence against someone who forges military documents. What happened to all of the hand wringing that the media went through a while back saying that they didn't do enough verification of their sources. I guess it all depends on whether the source supports your political viewpoints or not. I'm starting to agree with Lib Pirate that maybe Al Jezeera is more credible than the major US news agencies. :yuk:

JustMVG
09-09-2004, 04:44 PM
CNS is the Cyber Newsservice
Now from the Weekly Standard
Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM
DOCUMENTS CITED Wednesday by 60 Minutes in a widely-publicized expose of George W. Bush's National Guard Service are very likely forgeries, according to several experts on document authenticity and typography. The documents--four memos from Killian to himself or his files written in 1972 and 1973--appear to indicate that Bush refused or ignored orders to have a physical exam required to continue flying. CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported the segment and sourced the documents this way: "60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file," he said. The 60 Minutes story served as the basis for follow-up news reports for dozens of news organizations across the country. The memos were almost immediately questioned in the blog world, with blog Power Line leading the charge.
And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.
"These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.
Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."
There are several reasons these experts are skeptical of the authenticity of the Killian memos. First the typographic spacing is proportional, as is routine with professional typesetting and computer typography, not monospace, as was common in typewriters in the 1970s. (In proportional type, thin letters like "i" and "l" are spaced closer together than thick letters like "W" and "M". In monospace, all the letter widths are the same.)
Second, the font appears to be identical to the Times New Roman font that is the default typeface in Microsoft Word and other modern word processing programs. According to Flynn, the font is not listed in the Haas Atlas--the definitive encyclopedia of typewriter type fonts.
Third, the apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type.
So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
Says Flynn: "This looks pretty much like a hoax at this point in time."
CBS, in a statement Thursday afternoon, said it stands by the story. The network claims that its own document expert concluded the memos were authentic. There are several things CBS could do to clear up any confusion:
(1) Provide the name of the expert who authenticated the documents for Sixty Minutes.
(2) Provide the original documents to outside experts--William Flynn, Gerald Reynolds, and Peter Tytell seem to be the consensus top three in the United States--for further analysis.
(3) Provide more information on the source of the documents.
(A spokeswoman for CBS, Kelly Edwards, said she was overwhelmed with phone calls and did not respond to specific requests for comment.)
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

JustMVG
09-09-2004, 04:46 PM
And now From ABC News.....
Son of Late Officer Questions Bush Memos
Son of Late Officer Questions Memos Attributed to His Father in File on President Bush's Service
The Associated Press
DALLAS Sept. 9, 2004 — The authenticity of newly unearthed memos stating that George W. Bush failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.
"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.
Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.
"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."
News reports have said the memos, first obtained by CBS's "60 Minutes II," were found in Jerry Killian's personal records. Gary Killian said his father wasn't in the habit of bringing his work home with him, and that the documents didn't come from the family.
CBS stood by its reporting. "As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on "60 Minutes" was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity," CBS News said in a statement.
The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

OGShocker
09-09-2004, 09:03 PM
Why yes you can.
I need a ride in that FINE patriotic vessel!
Bring yourself to OP6C and you got it!

OGShocker
09-09-2004, 09:05 PM
Check out Hugh Hewitt's interview here.... (http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid874) Way too long to post!!

JustMVG
09-09-2004, 10:23 PM
I checked it out and very good reading but i loved this bit here:
Medical records released by the White House show Bush received a dental exam at the 187th base in January 1973.
"I never met the man and I'm sorry I didn't because he's somebody important," Mintz, 63, said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. Mintz acknowledged Bush could have performed office duties for the 187th without crossing paths with Mintz."
CNN didn't mention this admission that renders Mintz's questions about Bush irrelevant.
How typical of CNN to omit such a thing as the truth.
Thanks for the Link, See Ya MikeVG

Schiada76
09-10-2004, 06:39 AM
Bring yourself to OP6C and you got it!
Unfortunately work demands, otherwise I'd race you wit the Schiada, only to 1/4 of course.
On a brighter note, that scum bag Barnes that claims he had to pull strings when he was Lt. Gov. to get GW into the guard? Well it just so happens he wasn't even in office at the time!
Liberals are filthy scum!!!!!!!!!!!! :rollside:

Seadog
09-10-2004, 06:45 AM
Killian's wife has said that her husband would not have put notes like that in his file.

Dave C
09-10-2004, 07:29 AM
hmmmm... how such an omission can alter the conclusion one draws from their so called "facts", huh! Thats so Goebbels of them.
Thats the big media's new game. They report only part of the story and fail to report another fact that may lead you to draw another conclusion.
Sometimes its not what they say thats interesting its what they leave out thats even more interesting.
I regularly read up to 5 different news sources (not just the AP) for the same story just to see how the author tailors their story. Its always interesting to see how they differ.
This is because we can be trusted to make up our own minds.... they must do it for us. :mad:
How typical of CNN to omit such a thing as the truth.

eliminatedsprinter
09-10-2004, 07:39 AM
As a person who has worked for the U.S. gov, I can tell you that the chances of those Documents being real is virtually zero. If they came from the office of the head of a major medical center there is a slim chance they could be real, but the chance of an ordinary U.S. gov medical office having the (then) exotic equipment needed to produce them is zip. Kerry has gotten desperate and has brought in some real dirty players and this is one of the early results. Nothing more....

HCS
09-10-2004, 08:35 AM
Dan Rather needs to retire. He's still defending the documents.
This kind of BS will sink the democratic party.
Kerry's ship is sinking fast. Instead of sticking to the issues he's to busy
Bush bashing and defending himself.

eliminatedsprinter
09-10-2004, 10:07 AM
Dan Rather needs to retire. He's still defending the documents.
This kind of BS will sink the democratic party.
Kerry's ship is sinking fast. Instead of sticking to the issues he's to busy
Bush bashing and defending himself.
What else can he do, brag about his voting record or all the bills he's drafted and all the things he has done while in office to make us more free and prosperous? :wink:
Here I've got a new slogan for him. I'm John Kerry, I've been in congress for 20+ years and America is still the worlds most powerfull and wealthy nation. :wink: :rolleyes: :messedup: That's the most positve spin he can put on his time in office.

Havasu Cig
09-10-2004, 11:59 AM
Dan Rather needs to retire. He's still defending the documents.
This kind of BS will sink the democratic party.
Kerry's ship is sinking fast. Instead of sticking to the issues he's to busy
Bush bashing and defending himself.
Exactly!!!
I just heard him on the radio saying he "knows" the story is true and their will be "no apology". He needs to go.
That is the difference between the liberals and conservatives. Liberals are ****ing scumbag liars and will do whatever it takes to win. One of Kerry's campain leaders (I don't remember his name) said he thinks Carl Rove (sp) might be behind the fake documents. You have got to be kidding me!!! they are now blaming the head if the Bush campain for the release of these documents. **** it, if you get caught just spin the story. :mad:

Schiada76
09-10-2004, 12:12 PM
seeBS Has come out with a statement that they stand behind the story,it doesn't matter if the docs were forged it's the STORY that matters!
Don't confuse me with the FACTS! My mind is completley CLOSED!
Where's all the liberal scum weighing in on this? Summerhate? Don?
Why do liberal filth have to FORGE docs to make their point? Hell maybe they're WRONG!

Jeanyus
09-10-2004, 03:53 PM
I think CBS needs the new Mirosft document forger.
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/5859clippy1.png

JustMVG
09-10-2004, 04:37 PM
James Carville was asked this morning on the CBS This Morning, when asked, after reading from his new Kids book, if he was a consultant to the Kerry Campaign, he said he was just a vocal Democrat, and then said the same about Bill Clinton. What a Crock, it's blatently obvious that this whole thing reeks of him and his co-horts...... MVG

JustMVG
09-10-2004, 04:45 PM
Here's a link to check out if you don't want to see the Dan RAthER report.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm
Funny stuff, actually if you go to the Drudge home page it's kind of funny today.... MVG

572Daytona
09-10-2004, 05:32 PM
CBS's handwriting expert only examined the signature and said that looked authentic, but that could have easily been scanned in from another document and cut and pasted into this one. Hardly conclusive evidence unless the original document with a pen signature is seen. Also CBS is saying that there were typewriters that could produce superscript at that time which is true, even the experts questioning the authenticity have said that, but they were not common equipment and would have required changing a print ball in order to produce the superscript font and changing it back again when you are done. Hardly something someone would have done in typing a personal memo for his files.
And I still can't believe that CBS wouldn't have to divulge its source when there is suspected criminal activity (forgery).

JustMVG
09-10-2004, 05:52 PM
Well thats the rub though, that they (CBS) don't have to reveal anything, but once it's out there and can't be brought back, no matter what the outcome CBS will look to most folks as biased and i would think ask for D. Rather to step down, yeah then i wake up!!! :D CBS is a liberal mouthpiece always has been, as are other networks, but try to buck that trend as Fox News Channel has then you get attacked from all sides, at least Fox tries to be as "fair and balanced" as it can be. Mike VG

steelcomp
09-10-2004, 08:55 PM
Listened to a couple of good interviews today by Sean Hannity. He interviewed the daughter of Barnes, and she said her dad is lying (very sadly, and on nat'l radio), and that he told her previously that he had nothing to do with getting Bush into the NG. and that now he's telling a different story in order to help Kerry get elected. She said he's a die hard dem and that's all that matters to him.
Also interviewed was Killian's son who said he and his mother told CBS during a first interview before this story ever broke that they seriously doubted the authenticity of the documents, and told them who to talk to in order to get accurate info, like flyers and other military personnel who were with Bush on a regular basis, etc. Said Killian would never write such a memo, and that it didn't come from them. They (CBS) ignored the two closest sources of info, and their suggestions for even more accurate info, and instead went to THEIR sources that could collaberate some kind of smear on Bush. They had the truth in the palm of their hands in the first moments of the story, but ignored it in order to promote their political agenda. That should be criminal, and just might be! Should be interesting to see how this plays out. They really have no wher to go with this, and it's about time the media stepped on it's dick, right in front of everyone, BIG TIME!
Complete
Bull
Shit
edited to change John to Sean...duh!

JustMVG
09-10-2004, 10:33 PM
I heard that on Shauns show today, have to check the Fox Hannity and Colmes rerun in a bit.

Rexone
09-11-2004, 03:47 AM
James Carville was asked this morning on the CBS This Morning, when asked, after reading from his new Kids book, if he was a consultant to the Kerry Campaign, he said he was just a vocal Democrat, and then said the same about Bill Clinton. What a Crock, it's blatently obvious that this whole thing reeks of him and his co-horts...... MVG
James Carville is the most obnoxious lying bastard I have ever listened to. I will not even turn on any show he is on any more. He increases my need to go puke factor by about 500%.
So now he's onboard the Kerry campaign? Birds of a feather... (so so true). Kerry's rounding up all the skumbags now.
At this point even if I was a die hard dem and / or hated Bush (which I am neither) I would not vote for the lying group of idiots led by Kerry and his ambulancing chasing VP Edwards (how much tort reform ya think he's gonna promote). With all the bs going on now pre-election why would any logical person think any of that will change (that they would stop lying) if they got elected. Skunks do not change their stripes.
You are either honest or you are not. There is no middle ground. At least with Bush even if you do not agree with everything he does, he does what he says and you know where he stands.

HighRoller
09-11-2004, 04:42 AM
I heard that Ben Barnes was a member of the Kerry campaign in some administrative fashion. Did I hear wrong?

HighRoller
09-11-2004, 04:47 AM
Nope, guess I heard right. Not only is Mr. Barnes a Co-Chairman of John Kerry's campaign, he has donated over 380K to the DNC and Kerry's campaign in the past. So much for being "credible"!! What's next, James Carville claiming he was Bush's flight instructor?

v-drive
09-11-2004, 05:46 AM
James Carville is the most obnoxious lying bastard I have ever listened to. I will not even turn on any show he is on any more. He increases my need to go puke factor by about 500%.
So now he's onboard the Kerry campaign? Birds of a feather... (so so true). Kerry's rounding up all the skumbags now.
At this point even if I was a die hard dem and / or hated Bush (which I am neither) I would not vote for the lying group of idiots led by Kerry and his ambulancing chasing VP Edwards (how much tort reform ya think he's gonna promote). With all the bs going on now pre-election why would any logical person think any of that will change (that they would stop lying) if they got elected. Skunks do not change their stripes.
You are either honest or you are not. There is no middle ground. At least with Bush even if you do not agree with everything he does, he does what he says and you know where he stands.
Mike, you are so right it's not even funny. Look at it this way, Carville has been so far over the edge for so long he can't tell up from down. Now, Kerry listenes to Clinton and hires his strategests. I see this as a few more nails in Kerry's coffin. :coffeycup v-drive

058
09-11-2004, 10:26 AM
Looks like they are trying to re-arrainge the deck chairs on the Titanic....Kerry's campaign is sinking fast.

Dave C
09-11-2004, 10:49 AM
correct! what prize did HR win johnny?
I heard that Ben Barnes was a member of the Kerry campaign in some administrative fashion. Did I hear wrong?

steelcomp
09-11-2004, 06:13 PM
Mike, you are so right it's not even funny. Look at it this way, Carville has been so far over the edge for so long he can't tell up from down. Now, Kerry listenes to Clinton and hires his strategests. I see this as a few more nails in Kerry's coffin. :coffeycup v-drive
I think even in a bigger picture, it's a few more nails in the Lib's coffin. :D

572Daytona
09-11-2004, 08:55 PM
I found this on another website, and CBS says they don't see any reason to doubt the documents aren't authtenic :rolleyes:
1. proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG) (TANG = Texas Air National Guard)
2. superscripts not generally available
3. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)
4. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to Rather's forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top
5. Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available – only vertical hash marks.
6. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).
7. Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.
8. Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned carriage.
9. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.
10. Words run over consistent with word processor.
11. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.
12. Signature looks faked, and it cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released.
13. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)
14. No letterhead
15. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.
16. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.
17. Overlap analysis is an exact match (see #15).
18. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter. (see #8)
19. 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. (Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).
20. Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. This would not be used on correspondence, but rather forms. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston (this has been confirmed by the Pentagon, per James Rosen on Fox News)
21. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killiam, who did not type, improbable).
22. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1/Lt" not "1st Lt"
23. Subject matter bizarre
24. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.
25. Kerning was not available
26. In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.
27. Language not generally used by military personnel.
28. Not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.
29. Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.
30. Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)
31. The Killiam family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?
32. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?
33. Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.
34. Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.
35. Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies?
36. Acronym should be ORT, not ORET.
37. Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added!
38. Handwriting experts are not document experts – apples and oranges.
39. Lt Col Killian didn't type
40. The forged documents had no initials from a clerk
41. There was no CC list (needed for orders)
42. Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military
43. The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")
44. There was no "receipt confirmation box" (required for orders)
45. The superscript "th" in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms)
46. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively...repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn't be assured of authenticity.
47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't.
48. May 4, 1972 "order" memo and the May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian's memorandum

MagicMtnDan
09-12-2004, 05:19 AM
You gotta read this editorial in the Chicago Sun Times... (http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn12.html)
Here's just a paragraph:
"Unfortunately for CBS, Dan Rather's hairdresser sucks up so much of the budget that there was nothing left for any fact-checking, so the ''60 Minutes'' crew rushed on air with a damning National Guard memo conveniently called ''CYA'' that Bush's commanding officer had written to himself 32 years ago. ''This was too hot not to push,'' one producer told the American Spectator. Hundreds of living Swiftvets who've signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera -- that's way too cold to push; we'd want to fact-check that one thoroughly, till, say, midway through John Kerry's second term. But a handful of memos by one dead guy slipped to us by a Kerry campaign operative -- that meets ''basic standards'' and we gotta get it out there right away."
Funny how this "memo" didn't show up until the snake-of-snakes James Carville went to work for the Kerry campaign.

steelcomp
09-12-2004, 06:06 AM
You just have to love the WhiteHouse's responses to all this mud sliinging by the Kerry campaign. They don't sling back, they don't get pulled in by it, they don't "react". It's business as usual, forward looking, steadfast and true. This current administration has been one of the most honorable and classy group (IMO) that has occupied the Oval Office in a long time.
As for the Kerry campaign...well, what's the ol' saying? Give a man enough rope, and he'll hang himself. The Bush admin really dosen't need to respond to any of this...it's so self destructive already. Thanks JK and company for making this easy for us.
I know it's not wise to rest on your laurels at this point in a campaign, but these guys are self destructing, if they haven't completely self destructed already with this last little prank. And fiinally and historically, the lib media has exposed itself like a bride on her honeymoon! :D :D
God Bless George Bush
God Bless America

v-drive
09-12-2004, 06:50 AM
I was on the road yesterday morning when Kerry was supposed to give his response to President Bush's speech about 9-11 which I thought was great and I was wondering what the puke said. Did anyone see it?
v-drive

Dr. Eagle
09-12-2004, 07:06 AM
This whole thing cracks me up... I watched Rather's piece the when it aired. He was so smug, so much had that 60 minutes "I got your ass" face on... I had a hunch they didn't do a whole lot of authenticatiion because the yarn that was woven was just what Rather would want to hear and "break" as a news story.
INteresting that the guys family (wife and son) said those documents weren't authentic on camera and Rather decided to ignore their input, and didn't present their interviews.
From what I have seen, the documents were generated on a word processor. :eat:

eliminatedsprinter
09-13-2004, 12:20 PM
Nope, guess I heard right. Not only is Mr. Barnes a Co-Chairman of John Kerry's campaign, he has donated over 380K to the DNC and Kerry's campaign in the past. So much for being "credible"!! What's next, James Carville claiming he was Bush's flight instructor?
Mr Barnes's own daughter has said he is not credible on this issue. Sheesh, talk about a den of rats.

572Daytona
09-13-2004, 01:08 PM
The media has pretty much swept this issue under the table as I figured they would. I guess that pretty much confirms that the documents aren't legit or they would be all over the story still.

Dave C
09-15-2004, 10:15 AM
uh oh... not so fast with the sweep under the rug. :devil:
a congressional hearing has been request on the fake documents. :D
CNS (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL 20040915c.html)

OGShocker
09-15-2004, 10:57 AM
Rathers first FRAUD!! (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp)

Jeanyus
09-15-2004, 06:58 PM
I love the latest stance on Documentgate.
"OK so the documents are fake, Bush still has to answer the allegations."

JustMVG
09-16-2004, 07:07 AM
Well here we go again,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html
it seems that there is, again, more to this story.
Anyone see the former "secretary" on 60 mins last night ?

schiada96
09-16-2004, 10:04 AM
Well here we go again,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html
it seems that there is, again, more to this story.
Anyone see the former "secretary" on 60 mins last night ?
You could see her animosity toward President Bush in almost all of her comments.

Dave C
09-16-2004, 10:13 AM
ya "we can't prove they are authentic but we don't think they are frauds"....
well which one is it? :hammerhea

JustMVG
09-18-2004, 01:39 PM
Bump and some more info:
Bush Raises Questions About CBS Documents
2 hours, 5 minutes ago Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) questioned the authenticity of documents aired by CBS News that said he received special treatment during his Vietnam-era service in the National Guard, according to a Bush interview published on Saturday.
Reuters Photo
"There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered," Bush told the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, New Hampshire, after a week in which some experts questioned whether the documents had been fabricated by those seeking to damage Bush in his re-election race.
"I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out," Bush added.
CBS' "6O Minutes II" aired a Dan Rather report this month citing four memos purported to be from Bush's former Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Air National Guard Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.
The documents said Killian was under pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's service record after Bush, then a Guard pilot, was grounded for his failure to perform to standards or to take a physical.
CBS News president Andrew Heyward said the network was satisfied that the documents were accurate but said he recognized the public had doubts about them. Rather said he believed they were legitimate but echoed Hayward's pledge to answer critics.
Various news organizations have suggested Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer, might have been the source for the documents.
The New York Times reported on Saturday that Burkett unsuccessfully offered information and advice to help the campaign of Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites).
Burkett complained in an e-mail newsletter he had difficulty getting through to the people who mattered at the Kerry campaign because he had to "get through seven layers of bureaucratic kids trying to get a job after the election."
BUSH DEFENDS SERVICE
In the Union Leader interview, Bush defended his service and his decision to leave the Texas Guard to transfer to Alabama in order to work on a political campaign.
"I was granted permission by my superiors," he said. "I did everything they asked me to do and met my requirements and was honorably discharged. I'm proud of my service in the Guard."
In Washington, the Pentagon (news - web sites) released dozens more documents of Bush's Guard service on Friday, but did not settle questions about Bush's Guard service in Alabama in late 1972.
Bush, who was spending a quiet day at his parents' seaside home in rain-soaked Kennebunkport, did not go as far as his wife, Laura, in his comments about the documents.
She told Radio Iowa last week the documents "probably are altered and they probably are forgeries and I think that's terrible, really."
The president, asked by the Union Leader if the White House believed the Democrats were involved in the release of the documents, said, "I don't know." White House spokesman Scott McClellan has accused the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party of orchestrated attacks against Bush.

steelcomp
09-18-2004, 04:56 PM
White House spokesman Scott McClellan has accused the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party of orchestrated attacks against Bush.
Nnnnooooo! They wouldn't DO such a thing!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :cool: