BREAKING: Internet slueths figure out that new "Bush" national guard memos were FORGED!!!

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BREAKING: Internet slueths figure out that new "Bush" national guard memos were FORGED!!! (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:23:35 AM EDT

www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE!!!!

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:25:37 AM EDT

[#1]

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

The shit has hit the fan.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:27:56 AM EDT

[#2]

oh please.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:29:10 AM EDT

[#3]

That web page makes perfect sense, as long as the memos found were claimed to be originals.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:31:01 AM EDT

[#4]

who knows what to believe, personally I don't really care. Bush was a good pilot and voluntered for vietnam, if he got to become a pilot because of his ties big deal, im still voting for him because I think he has done good for us.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:31:32 AM EDT

[#5]

tagged!

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:33:18 AM EDT

[#6]

Suddenly its impossible to access the POWERLINEBLOG page!

What's up with that?! Hmmm.?

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:33:38 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE!!!!

Dead link...

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:34:28 AM EDT

[#8]

LOL, anybody print it before it disappeared?

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:35:25 AM EDT

[#9]

Its back.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:35:28 AM EDT

[#10]

Dead

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:35:48 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
LOL, anybody print it before it disappeared?

Got it...

The sixty-first minute

Today's big Boston Globe story on President Bush's Air National Guard service is based on memos to file from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian: "Bid cited to boost Bush in Guard."

The Globe story is itself based on last night's 60 Minutes report: "New questions on Bush Guard duty." The online version of the 60 Minutes story has links to the memos. Killian died in 1984; CBS states that it "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic." Readers Tom Mortensen and Liz Mac Dougald direct us to a FreeRepublic thread post no. 47 to this effect:

Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.

UPDATE: Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post. Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the an IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970's. Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer. However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle:
The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ’ (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of
smart correction in things like Microsoft Word.
UPDATE 2: Reader John Risko adds:
I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:

1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.

2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.

3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.

4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......

5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could have occurred in 1973. There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny "th." The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.

In summary, the variable type reveals the Killian memos to be crude forgeries, the tiny "th" confirms it in the 8/18/73 memo, and I offer my other points as icing on the cake.

UPDATE 3: We have received so much information from readers that it's hard to keep up. Reader Fred Godel points us to Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly "Smoking gun update" stating that the White House has released copies of two of the memos and left their authenticity undisputed. Reader John Burgess adds:
I'm afraid the Post 47 at Free Republic is not compelling. By 1969, I was using an IBM Selectric typewriter, with proportional type balls. They were widely available in the public sector-and thus readily available to the military. I do not recall having used a Palatine typeface, but Times Roman was certainly common. While I do think the entire argument about "Bush/AWOL" is bull, the raising of type faces is not useful. In fact, it's counterproductive because it's demonstrably false.
Chris Rohlfs points to another document in Bush's record (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc27.gif) which, if real (I got that link from here) appear to have some typing from the same typewriter. Look at the word "Recommend."
Reader Larry Nichols adds:
What a freakin' joke! I served in the Air Force for 21 years -- 1968 to 1989 -- the first 7 as a Personnel Specialist and the remainder as a PSM (Personnel Systems Manager). I also spent 2 years as an inspector at Hq SAC, Offutt AFB, NE in Omaha, inspecting Personnel Offices at all 26 SAC bases. As a PSM I had to know every job in Personnel, including the proper filing of documents in individual military records. Memos were NOT used for orders, as the one ordering 1LT Bush to take a physical. This would have done as a letter, of which a copy should have been sent to the CBPO (Consolidated Base Personnel Office) to be filed in 1LT Bush's military record. Memos DID NOT get filed in personnel records.

I first used a computer in the Air Force in 1971 while stationed at Albrook AFB, Canal Zone. The computers were used only for updating records data. The Air Force was the first branch of the military to use a mainframe (Burroughs B-3500) computer for updating military records. Punch cards were used up until then. There were no Word Processors used until the late 1970's or early 1980's. Typewriters were still used extensively until the mid-1980s. These memos appear to be bogus.

As far as an Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) on Bush, unless he was under a supervisor for X number of days during a reporting period, no report could be written. Under special circumstances, a report could be written with only 60 days of supervision. The period may cover an extended period. Example: FROM 1 JUN 1970 THRU 15 DEC 1971 (more than 1 year) DAYS SUPERVISED: 60. The "vanilla civilian" Liberals and Journalists should quit trying to talk and write about things they know nothing about. In Sen. Kerry's case, that includes almost everything!

Reader Joshua Persons writes:
I've written a post regarding the forgery post on my weblog (click here). Mostly a rehash, but I googled and found a comparable, unrelated government memo from 1972 for visual comparison. Check it out at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/72e30.pdf .

Posted by The Big Trunk at 07:51 AM | TrackBack (37)

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:36:36 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Suddenly its impossible to access the POWERLINEBLOG page!

What's up with that?! Hmmm.?

Because there is a link to if from FARK.com. That Blog is FARKED!!!

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:36:43 AM EDT

[#13]

It's working for me.

Edited to save space 'cause somebody beat me to printing it.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:40:37 AM EDT

[#14]

Interesting.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:41:10 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Suddenly its impossible to access the POWERLINEBLOG page!

What's up with that?! Hmmm.?

Because there is a link to if from FARK.com. That Blog is FARKED!!!

Well, that explains that.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:41:43 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE!!!!

Sleuths Not Required.
Anyone older than 25 should have caught the issue of typesetting and fonts and the teensy fact that proportional font spacing in regular office documents DIDN'T EXIST in ~'73.

tinfoil /ON - I think it's a case of the History-phobia / blind-spot that LLLiberals have. Never occurred to the childish little bastard that created these documents that the above would trip them up. And the equally-childish BIG bastards running the John F'in Kerry campaign were too desperate to notice.

btw, Boston Globe is a NYT-owned paper, has toed the Anti-Bush line all along, and one of their writers has authored several wet sloppy pro-Kerry books for their campaign. And was recently involved in some other shady business re the SBVT.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:43:25 AM EDT

[#17]

It seems to be working now, but it doesn't seem very conclusive.

Except the 'th' thing.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:44:17 AM EDT

[#18]

Here are screenshots of the original page:

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:45:26 AM EDT

[#19]

Whatever.

GWB has proven to be a better CIC than Kerry EVER would be.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:47:47 AM EDT

[#20]

tagged.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:49:03 AM EDT

[#21]

I hope the mainstream media picks this up to give it some more visability and credibility.

(yeah, I know........................................)

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:50:15 AM EDT

[#22]

If the documents and the information contained in them are so obviously false, then why isn't the Bush Administration responding in a way to let people know this? I'm sure Bush can remember who contacted him and if they ordered him to do anything or not. If these "memos" are just flat out lies it seems Bush would have something to say about it.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:52:45 AM EDT

[#23]

lol. Reading on other blogs -

Questions about 'CYA' - who the hell would blatantly title a memo that, and wondering when it came into common usage?

The date of the memo - August 18, 1973 - is a Saturday. Who the hell writes a memo on a Saturday?

The Wing number has a superscript 'th' on it - IMPOSSIBLE on typewriters of the era, and automatic for some moron-forger using MS Word.

The Boston Globe and CBS News are both running hard with this crap - not the first time either has been caught blatantly LYING to the People. Yet they pay no price for it.

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:53:14 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I hope the mainstream media picks this up to give it some more visability and credibility.

(yeah, I know........................................)

I just emailed Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity about it...we'll see what happens now...

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:54:30 AM EDT

[#25]

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:54:45 AM EDT

[#26]

A military memo without a DTG?
A military memo without RANKS?

Posted: 9/9/2004 8:56:38 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
lol. Reading on other blogs -

The date of the memo - August 18, 1973 - is a Saturday. Who the hell writes a memo on a Saturday?

Well the Guard and Reserves are not called Weekend Warriors for nothing!

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:00:29 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
...The Wing number has a superscript 'th' on it - IMPOSSIBLE on typewriters of the era, and automatic for some moron-forger using MS Word...

Some old models of typewriters had a superscript "th/st" key, IIRC.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:09:12 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...The Wing number has a superscript 'th' on it - IMPOSSIBLE on typewriters of the era, and automatic for some moron-forger using MS Word...

Some old models of typewriters had a superscript "th/st" key, IIRC.

Except those older model typewriters wouldn't have proportional font, would they?

The other interesting snippit was the paper size used... the copy found is 8 1/2x11, but supposedly the original would have been a smaller sized paper, and if you photocopy a smaller image onto larger paper, you tend to get an outline of the original... which you did not have here.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:10:15 AM EDT

[#30]

So, to summarize,

The records/memos used by the Boston Globe to conclude GWB didn't fulfill his obligations appear to be badly done forgeries.

Don't forget, GWB got 56 points (out of the reqd 50), for each of his last two years.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:10:21 AM EDT

[#31]

For you guys that may be curious or wish to expand their "useless" knowledge database, I present to you the Varityper Phototypesetting machine.

I know it well. I owned one. A 30K beast that set type on a photography type paper. You set type via cryptic codes on a monochrome CRT and it spiked 100% on the pain in the ass meter. A laser shot a beam of light through a film disc and exposed the paper. The paper rolled up into a drum and we toted it to the lab for processing. If you needed to change fonts, you had to open the machine and swap film discs.

Once exposed and the paper was dry, we cut it up and pasted it to a paste up board to put under a camera to make plates for printing. If you had a typo, you had to either paste in a correction, or start over.

This all happen in 1979 to about 84 when Adobe and True-Type came on board and we dumped the Varityper for a 1000 dpi laser and a 386 computer. I only have one part of this machine left. A stand that the processor sat on. The rest of it was cut up and sent to the landfill.

My God, those days sucked.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:10:37 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...The Wing number has a superscript 'th' on it - IMPOSSIBLE on typewriters of the era, and automatic for some moron-forger using MS Word...

Some old models of typewriters had a superscript "th/st" key, IIRC.

I doubt it...and it doesn't explain the very suspicious deliberate spaces in some of the documents, as if the person typing the document was trying to prevent the word processing program from making a small "th" or "st"...I smell bullshit...huge piles of it...

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:11:14 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...The Wing number has a superscript 'th' on it - IMPOSSIBLE on typewriters of the era, and automatic for some moron-forger using MS Word...

Some old models of typewriters had a superscript "th/st" key, IIRC.

Not until several years after this memo was supposedly 'typed'. Late 70s IBM Selectric, etc.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:11:25 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I hope the mainstream media picks this up to give it some more visability and credibility.

(yeah, I know........................................)

I just emailed Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity about it...we'll see what happens now...

Send one to Rush, too...

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:12:27 AM EDT

[#35]

The big one for me is the "single apostrophe" key --> '

Wordprocessors now let you "mirror image" it i.e., to make it go the other way --> `

Old typewriters did not. ESPECIALLY in the early 1970s.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:16:02 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hope the mainstream media picks this up to give it some more visability and credibility.

(yeah, I know........................................)

I just emailed Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity about it...we'll see what happens now...

Send one to Rush, too...

DONE!

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:17:34 AM EDT

[#37]

.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:21:40 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...The Wing number has a superscript 'th' on it - IMPOSSIBLE on typewriters of the era, and automatic for some moron-forger using MS Word...

Some old models of typewriters had a superscript "th/st" key, IIRC.

Not until several years after this memo was supposedly 'typed'. Late 70s IBM Selectric, etc.

No, I'm pretty sure we had an old manual/ribbon typewriter with a key that alternated between "th" and "st" depending on the shift key. It had several keys that I believe most other typewriters didn't, like a "1/2" and "1/4" key, etc.

BTW, I'm not defending the memo or anything - I just remebered an old typewriter with that capability. I was just a kid, but that memory is pretty distinct.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:23:43 AM EDT

[#39]

I don;t think the issue is whether there were typewriters that could do that or not... the issue is whether the typewriters used by the DoD and the Guard had that feature.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:26:01 AM EDT

[#40]

BS[

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:28:31 AM EDT

[#41]

Damm, that's sloppy. The idiots could have at least used Notepad instead of Word and cut some paper to the correct size.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:34:08 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
I don;t think the issue is whether there were typewriters that could do that or not... the issue is whether the typewriters used by the DoD and the Guard had that feature.

Absolutely!

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:34:50 AM EDT

[#43]

Also some signature problems:

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:52:53 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Also some signature problems:

It would appear that the mainstream media got scooped by the internet AGAIN.

Posted: 9/9/2004 9:56:04 AM EDT

[#45]

It would appear that the mainstream media got scooped by the internet AGAIN.

I bet Nixon is smiling right now...

Posted: 9/9/2004 10:02:45 AM EDT

[#46]

Check this out : littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

thursday, september 09, 2004

Bush Guard Documents: Forged

I opened Microsoft Word, set the font to Microsoft’s Times New Roman, tabbed over to the default tab stop to enter the date “18 August 1973,” then typed the rest of the document purportedly from the personal records of the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian.

And my Microsoft Word version, typed in 2004, is an exact match for the documents trumpeted by CBS News as “authentic.”

A screenshot of the “original” document as found at CBS:

A screenshot of my Microsoft Word document:

The spacing is not just similar—it 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’s defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the “th” in “187th” 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 “age” the document.

There is absolutely no way that this document was typed on any machine that was available in 1973.

Once again, the "OLD MEDIA" gets OWNED!

Posted: 9/9/2004 10:10:33 AM EDT

[#47]

More evidence:

"Original" supposedly, circa, 1972 BUSH memo: www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf

Text of same memo TYPED into DEFAULT SETTINGS on WORD 2003: spacetownusa.com/bushmemo.pdf

Posted: 9/9/2004 10:17:14 AM EDT

[#48]

Of course this is all a forgery. Only a bunch of liberal media whores who have NEVER served would not recognize the fakery.

What a bunch of maroons!

As has been said tho...you won't see this any time soon on any major media outlet.

Posted: 9/9/2004 10:24:51 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
www.speedfreak.cc/gallery/killian1973.jpg

Also some signature problems:
pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL92/800445/1417170/66243943.jpg

Now, I've read a fair number of military documents in my Military History classes and I can't think of one I saw that totally lacked ranks. Even in personal letters home most guys use ranks unless they're talking about a close buddy or other enlisted men. Officers always seem to get refered to by rank, even when it's another officer writing..

Also, for fun, I intentionally vary how I sign documents and none of them look that different.

Posted: 9/9/2004 10:27:26 AM EDT

[#50]

In t he military, it is MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BREAKING: Internet slueths figure out that new "Bush" national guard memos were FORGED!!! (Page 1 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us