Post #173,490
9/10/04 4:33:14 AM
|
About those Killian docs..
One thing that DID worry me was the superscript on "111th". So, I fired up Word and produced that superscript - actually if you type in "111th" Word will automatically upshift the "th". In TNR font, the top of the t is even with the preceding 1 and the entire t is half the size of the 1. The riser on the h goes slightly above the top of the 1, with the top of the 1 falling halfway between the top of the riser and the "n" part of the h.
In the document the th is clearly half-vertically-spaced above the 111, as you would do it on a typewriter - but the letters do in fact look smaller. If you look at the rest of the document however, you'll see that many letters look far too large and some are too small - e.g. the entire word "(flight)" is far too large - compare to "commander". (Why the distortion? The document may have been wrinkled and not lying flat on the platen of the scanner/copier.) Also, close examination shows that the font is *not* TNR - the numerals tell the story, esp. "2", and, most tellingly, the use of lowercase "l" as the number "1" - this was common practice in typing - in fact some typewriters did not even have a numeral 1!
IOW this was definitely produced with a typewriter, and to hell with "document experts".
-drl
|
Post #173,533
9/10/04 12:16:28 PM
|
Nice try, but not nearly good enough
[link|http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged|Compare and contrast]
Excerpt:
The spacing is not just similar\ufffdit is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word\ufffds defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the \ufffdth\ufffd in \ufffd187th\ufffd is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially \ufffdage\ufffd the document. (Update: I printed the document and the \ufffdth\ufffd matches perfectly in the printed version. It\ufffds a difference between screen and printer fonts.)
There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry is a liar and he doesn't tolerate fights from others.
"All the news you wish would go away"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
|
Post #173,535
9/10/04 12:19:38 PM
|
Re: Nice try, but not nearly good enough
The above itself is a lie - no decent word processor would do such a shitty job at line breaking. See my above post, asshole. (Maybe YOU are behind this.)
h
-drl
|
Post #173,551
9/10/04 1:13:53 PM
|
Try again, but research first
There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973. According to [link|http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html|this link] IBM introduced proportional spacing in 1941(!!!) THIRTY+ years prior to the origin of this document. Next we take a look at [link|http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:PZnx1vdH-6oJ:https://web1.ssg.gunter.af.mil/ho/documents/chronologies/Air%2520Force%2520Data%2520Systems%2520Design%2520Center%25201969.doc+selectric+military&hl=en|this link] (google'd HTML version of a USAF doc). Isn't that interesting, USAF was making extensive use of these same IBM machines. Weird, I know. And these machines came w/ interchangeable key-sets. Now, I'm no expert here, but given the frequency w/ which the services would encounter things like, "rd", "st", "th" in the memos/docs they were producing, I wouldn't be at all surprised that they purchased the alternate key-sets. Congratulations, however, on your helping the right in trying to bury the content of the memos. thanks mx. "I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on
exactly what my philosophy is now, but I'm flexible."
-- Malcolm X
|
Post #173,552
9/10/04 1:22:18 PM
|
Eh? Selectric is not the same as Executive.
|
Post #173,554
9/10/04 1:29:49 PM
|
Not saying they are...
First link merely indicates the technology existed long before 1973.
Second link shows USAF was using typewriters - i.e. the Selectric Composer - that were capable of producing the memo(s) in question.
thanks
mx.
"I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on
exactly what my philosophy is now, but I'm flexible."
-- Malcolm X
|
Post #173,555
9/10/04 1:33:50 PM
|
Okie Dokie.
|
Post #173,556
9/10/04 1:35:17 PM
9/10/04 1:38:14 PM
|
Key caps
Typewriter repairmen where accustomed to putting new caps on hammer-front-strike TWs. IBM typewriters featured replaceable hammercaps.
See this:
[link|http://www.selectric.org/selectric/index.html|http://www.selectric...ectric/index.html]
I think THIS is conclusive, and will now admit that these documents were in fact forged. Amazing.
-drl
Edited by deSitter
Sept. 10, 2004, 01:38:14 PM EDT
|
Post #173,558
9/10/04 1:48:27 PM
|
Re: Key caps
In which case the next question is, who forged them? Did these come straight via a FOIA request? Are these part of Shrubs scrubbed files?
Again, however, note that your link states the Selectric Composer - which was capable of this, and for which the link has no sample - could make these memos. They were expensive in '66 when first introduced, maybe not so much four to six years later.
The USAF was using the Composer... but where?
thanks
mx.
"I'm man enough to tell you that I can't put my finger on
exactly what my philosophy is now, but I'm flexible."
-- Malcolm X
|
Post #173,562
9/10/04 1:56:17 PM
|
Re: Key caps
I don't think the document was produced in Windows/Word, since there are small but important font differences (and I'm very anal about fonts :) It may have been produced in Word Perfect, or with a Mac.
Did the Republicans deliberately plant forgeries to take the attention away from Ben Barnes' statements? Where did the documents originate? That after all was the REALLY damning evidence.
It is a terrible time when we have to doubt if such subtrefuge is afoot.
-drl
|
Post #173,563
9/10/04 2:01:13 PM
|
The expense is irrelevant.
I'm plenty familiar with this in the corp. environment from back then and I'm sure it was the same in government. A high capability machine would be purchased for a particular person or project. The person would be transferred, the project would be canceled or some such. At this point the high capability machine becomes an orphan to be assigned to whoever has no choice in the matter (it was often oversize or a bother to use).
For example, the expensive programmable accountants calculator I used until 1984 was never programmed again after I left and was passed on to whoever didn't have a say in the matter until it finally died many years later.
So the expense or specialized intent of a machine has little bearing on who ends up using it some years (or even months) after purchase.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #173,569
9/10/04 2:14:34 PM
|
According to other bloggers
Selectric Composers were not only expensive, but really hard to use. They were driven by specialist to produce fliers and news sheet, not used by officers for documents that were to be hidded in personal file, never to see the light of day unless CUA was desired. Think PowerPoint versus Photoshop.
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
|
Post #173,568
9/10/04 2:14:04 PM
|
Picture of Selectric Composer 47 kb .jpg
[link|http://www.ibmcomposer.org/SelComposer/description.htm|Selectric Composer]. [image|http://www.ibmcomposer.org/SelComposer/images/MyComposer1.jpg|0|Selctric Composer|325|420] The basic task of the IBM Composer was to produce justified camera ready copy using proportional fonts. It has the capability of using a variety of font sizes and styles.
The first IBM Composer was the IBM "Selectric" Composer announced in 1966. It was a hybrid "Selectric" typewriter that was modified to have proportional spaced fonts. It is 100% mechanical and has no digital electronics. Since it has no memory, the user was required to type everything twice. While typing the text the first time, the machine would measure the length of the line and count the number of spaces. When the user finished typing a line of text, they would record special measurements into the right margin of the paper. Once the entire column of text was typed and measured, it would then be retyped, however before typing each line, the operator would set the special justification dial (on the right side) to the proper settings, then type the line. The machine would automatically insert the appropriate amount of space between words so that all of the text would be justified. It doesn't sound like a machine that someone would use to type memos. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #173,553
9/10/04 1:27:49 PM
|
Re: Try again, but research first
Arkadiy has a point, he says he put the text into Word and got identical results. Now, my normal.dot has 10 pt TNR font and 1 1/4 inch margins (check - delete normal.dot and let Word recreate it...works). What about your? Take the text and type/paste it in your Word's "blank document". If you've modified your normal.dot, move it to a safe place and let Word create a new one with program defaults.
-drl
|
Post #173,567
9/10/04 2:10:47 PM
|
I don't have a point, but LGF does
You saw two bitmaps superimposed. One comes from Word, another from an electro-mechanical device 30 years ago, through xerox and fax. What are the odds that the bitmaps will align the way they do? The letter shapes are same, the kerning is same, the line distance are same, word spacing is same. Unless someone can point a direct engineering path from IBM Selectic to Word kerning algorithms and Times New Roman font, I am convinced that's forgery.
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
|
Post #173,575
9/10/04 2:34:03 PM
|
Re: I don't have a point, but LGF does
I trust you - I don't trust Wers.
-drl
|
Post #173,598
9/10/04 5:08:55 PM
|
OK, I did what he did
Our office closed early today so I figured, what the heck...
Cut and pasted from his Word doc to my own, pasted as plain text, so I only had default formatting. Took a screenshot of Word doc.
Took a screenshot of PDF memo from CBS site.
Using Adobe Photoshop Elements, reduced the Word screenshot to red outline.
Overlayed the red outline over the PDF screenshot. Positioned and stretched until I achieved the following result:
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/pub/Main/OpenForum/bushMemo.gif|http://twiki.iwethey...orum/bushMemo.gif]
(Whoever maintains tWiki - I screwwd up and saved a 700K .psd file of the same thing. I don't know how to remove it. Could you do that?)
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
|
Post #173,602
9/10/04 5:43:56 PM
|
Nice!
I'd say that was conclusive. Now to find out the history of these documents.
Note that you DO have to reset the margins and switch to 12 point type - nevertheless...
Good work.
-drl
|
Post #173,604
9/10/04 6:07:32 PM
|
CBS is standing by them so far
[link|http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-08-presidential-debates_x.htm|PR News Wire] Later today, CBS News will address on
the air and in detail the issues surrounding the documents broadcast in the 60
MINUTES report on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. At
this time, however, CBS News states with absolute certainty that the ability
to produce the "th" superscript mentioned in reports about the documents did
exist on typewriters as early as 1968, and in fact is in President Bush's
official military records released by the White House. This and other issues
surrounding the authenticity of the documents and more on this developing
story will be reported on tonight on THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER. So far they are standing by the memos. Which is not really surprising, they would have had experts vet the memos before running them. The experts can be decieved some times, but they are not likely to get caught on the sort of obvious things people are complaining about. Jay
|
Post #173,620
9/10/04 8:23:05 PM
|
Rather is in over his head
These things are obvious...in which case it becomes obvious that these documents were NOT, in fact, vetted.
He's been caught with his pants down and he doesn't want to admit that his weenie is showing.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #173,624
9/10/04 9:20:29 PM
|
All of the obvious complaints are wrong
[link|http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040910e.html|Rather's speech CNS news] [link|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml|CBS] Questions have been raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos acquired by CBS News that say President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush was shirking his duties.
The network is defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The obvious complaints are based on the features of the typing and font, but all of those objections are simply wrong. The use of superscript actually appears in other Bush guard records, and the font used was available before Vietnam. The documents could still be fakes, but they simply are not the sort of obvious forgeries that some are making them out to be. One of the best arguments for them being true is that the White House isn't questioning them, and in fact distributed them as part of their release of Bush documents after CBS gave them copies. Jay
|
Post #173,633
9/10/04 9:59:10 PM
|
Considering...
...that people were interviewed that directly challenged their authenticity and the opinions given in the piece lend credence to the opposite. These interviews were squelched.
And Rather is INSANE if he thinks that the >real< story should be discussed separate from the documents when there would be no story without them.
Looney.
Nuts.
Out there.
WAY LEFT FIELD.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #173,637
9/10/04 11:21:16 PM
9/11/04 1:42:22 AM
|
On the superscripts...
E.g. [link|http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf|This] (via [link|http://www.dailykos.com|http://www.dailykos.com] ) - see page 3. The "Pilot Trainee 111th..." line is the only place in this 19 page .pdf that I've seen "th" as a superscript. The typewriter used for this entry apparently had a "th" superscript glyph. But note that all of the text in this 19-page package uses a fixed-pitch font.
If someone could find some other 1972-vintage documents that show a "th" superscript with a proportional font, the CBS documents wouldn't look so extraordinary. Have you seen such a document?
(Also, on page 12 there seems to be an unobscured version of Bush's Social Security Number (but with too many digits). I wonder what else is buried there for the dilligent investigator.)
I think the White House isn't questioning them, not because they think they're genuine, but because they don't want to have a horse in this particular race at this point. They're passing them out to try to look like they're not hiding anything from the press; I wouldn't take it as a stamp of approval.
My $0.02.
[edit:]
A more complete copy of Bush's personnel records is [link|http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-1_2004_Personnel_File.pdf|here] (26 page .pdf). Page 2 has more examples of the superscript "th" - but again in a fixed pitch font. It must have been prepared after November 21, 1974 - the last entry date.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #173,625
9/10/04 9:35:47 PM
|
The CBS statement.
[link|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/printable641481.shtml|Here]. The expert they cite is a handwriting expert - [link|http://www.aspghandwriting.org/Matley.htm|Marcel Matley]. It doesn't look like he's an expert on the mechanical aspects of typewriting. The other expert cited is someone who knew Killian at the time.
I hope they actually took the time to have the documents evaluated by someone who knows the technology of the time and the intricacies of typography.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #173,627
9/10/04 9:41:09 PM
|
The big question is
Did they ever tell us who discovered these new documents, and how they were discovered? I think if they were genuine, they could tell us that, couldn't they?
Nightowl >8#
"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
|
Post #173,632
9/10/04 9:48:26 PM
|
It depends on who they got them from, and the conditions.
|
Post #173,634
9/10/04 11:07:24 PM
|
Probably not
If they are legitimate, then they where probably given to somebody at CBS by somebody that works at a military files storage department. Which is to say that handing them over was technically illegal. The military probably couldn't actually send them to jail but they would lose their job and career if they where identified.
|
Post #173,641
9/10/04 11:47:48 PM
|
NYTimes story: CBS won't disclose source.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html?pagewanted=print&position=|Here]: Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York who worked for I.B.M. in Midtown Manhattan for 14 years and repaired typewriters throughout that time, said that the Executive had proportional spacing and that its typebar could be fitted with superscript characters. Documents from the period show the Air Force tested the Selectric Composer as early as April 1969. But spokesmen for the National Guard and Texas Air National Guard said it was impossible to trace the machines that Colonel Killian's unit, the 111th Fighter Intercept Squadron, or any unit, used so long ago.
Mark Allen, chief of the external media division of the National Guard Bureau public affairs office, said there was no way to reconstruct the equipment or whether Colonel Killian typed the memos or had a clerk type them.
"It's sheer speculation as to what might have transpired,'' Mr. Allen said, "and it's pointless for us to get into that kind of speculation."
[...]
Experts on documents said the veracity of the CBS memos might never be known because they had been copied so many times. CBS News officials said that its papers were copies, too, and that it did not have the originals. The network said it would not identify its original source.
Mr. Rather said, "We worked long and hard and became convinced that, yes, this person had the capacity to get the documents, and, yes, this person was truthful."
Mr. Matley, the documents expert, said in an interview after the program, that he had examined documents and handwriting since 1985 and had testified in 65 trials. Mr. Matley said the documents the network sent him were so deteriorated from copying that it was impossible to identify the typeface.
"It's sheer speculation to say that you couldn't have done that until a computer came along,'' he said.
As a result, he said, he focused on the signatures. CBS sent him the four newfound documents, as well as others that have been verified as signed by Colonel Killian. "There were significant similarities and the differences were insignificant," he said in the configuration of letters and the angle of the writing. It sounds as if it's going to be one of those situations that never ends in a definitive resolution since the originals aren't available. I think I'm about done on this topic. Is that a "Hallelujah!!!" I hear? :-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #173,644
9/10/04 11:55:41 PM
|
Nope.
I think I'm about done on this topic. Is that a "Hallelujah!!!" I hear? :-) Not from me, I'm fascinated by document comparison and handwriting comparison. It's been something I've always been fascinated with. Nightowl >8#
"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
|
Post #173,653
9/11/04 12:38:12 AM
9/11/04 12:38:22 AM
|
This is pure bull
Proportional vs. monospaced is a strawman. Yes there were proportional fonts available. It does not explain why a Word document matches so closely. Unless someone can produce similarly close match w/o the use of Word (I'd even allow the use of any other computer software, or, of course, any mechanical device), the document stays fake.
Another thing that shuld be easy to verify: was superscript "th" common in other documents by the same author? There should be quite a volume of paperwork filed away by the Air Force NG from that time.
Still another thing: we have a senior officer, presumably throughly skilled in navigating bureacracy. At least skilled enough to file a CYA memo. DOes the wording of memo match such skill? Would somebody who realizes he is on the pull minefield title the document that's supposed to save him later "CYA"? Mr. Roomberg could you chime in?
(edit: misspelled name)
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
Edited by Arkadiy
Sept. 11, 2004, 12:38:22 AM EDT
|
Post #173,667
9/11/04 9:09:14 AM
|
dumb question
if I was writing a word processing program, would I want it to have at least the capabilities of the typewriter I wanted to replace?
thanx,
bill
These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #173,676
9/11/04 9:51:47 AM
|
Ahh
Haven't read it.
OK, I'll go look.
|
Post #173,677
9/11/04 10:05:22 AM
|
Nope, not good CYA
Looking here, at the comparative screenshots:
[link|http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged|http://littlegreenfo...Documents-_Forged]
He admitted to wrong doing with very little pushing. No one threatened him directly. He "backdated" since it was the expedient thing to do, while claiming moral highground by not rating?
Feels wrong. There is nothing that would save this person from charges if it was found later, and admits too much.
Add the typeface, kerning, word breaks, superscript issues (remember, I'm in junk mail). It is VERY difficult to match original text layout when reproducing it on the computer. We might spend hours on a single paragraph if it really needs to be done. It rarely does. If they need the EXACT text/layout, we use a graphics of the original, rather than try to create it ourselves.
If this person REALLY duplicated using word defaults, then it seals it. Fake.
Do the test yourself. I'm not going to bother.
|
Post #173,680
9/11/04 10:15:13 AM
|
Manual typewriters don't kern.
But I don't see any kerning in either of these shots.
|
Post #173,681
9/11/04 10:20:31 AM
|
On the other hand, the upshifted "th" will not be shown
on the screen, as he said. Not sure what happens when it is printed. Easy enough to physically cut and paste to move it up.
|
Post #173,688
9/11/04 11:22:42 AM
|
Kerning wasn't added and it's off by default in Word
|
Post #173,693
9/11/04 12:12:50 PM
|
You're right
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
|
Post #173,692
9/11/04 12:10:46 PM
|
I did.
[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=173598|Post #173598]
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
|
Post #173,996
9/13/04 5:44:59 PM
|
IBM Selectric Composer
Somebody tried....
[link|http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html|http://shapeofdays.t..._ibm_selectr.html]
--
... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
|
Post #174,004
9/13/04 6:05:20 PM
|
Thanks.
|
Post #174,017
9/13/04 8:41:33 PM
|
Wow
It's remarkable that the kerning is so similar - I'd say identical with some variation allowed for operation of the device. Did Microsoft just *steal* the algorithm, or perhaps use a well-known one? After all it's a fairly simple problem depsite its complex appearence.
-drl
|
Post #174,021
9/13/04 9:08:59 PM
|
The Story of Times (New) Roman
By [link|http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm|Charles Bigelow]. Info on TrueType is on that site too, [link|http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/tthist.htm|A History of TrueType].
They're good reads.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #174,025
9/13/04 9:27:20 PM
|
Thanks, very entertaining and informational!
All that fuss over a font! Heheh!
All I know is that I like Times New Roman best when writing standard Word documents.
Nightowl >8#
"A determined soul will do more with a rusty monkey wrench than a loafer will accomplish with all the tools in a machine shop." -- Robert Hughes, Australian Art Critic, Writer
|
Post #174,032
9/13/04 9:55:49 PM
|
New Century Schoolbook is the One True Font! 60 kB .gifs. (new thread)
Created as new thread #174031 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=174031|New Century Schoolbook is the One True Font! 60 kB .gifs.]
|
Post #173,687
9/11/04 11:19:52 AM
|
Well, that's incorrect, isn't?
But spokesmen for the National Guard and Texas Air National Guard said it was impossible to trace the machines that Colonel Killian's unit, the 111th Fighter Intercept Squadron, or any unit, used so long.
Forget the machine, this was a military organization, they thrive on paperwork. Look for other documentation produced by Colonel Killian around the same time period and see if the documents match up. The FOIA should be able to produce tons of documentation.
|
