INDCJournal: DOES THE BOSTON GLOBE LIE ABOUT THE CBS MEMO?

« Unravelling (UPDATED - BIG Time!) | Main | HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe! »

September 11, 2004

DOES THE BOSTON GLOBE LIE ABOUT THE CBS MEMO?

Posted by Bill

INDC EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW MATERIAL.

HUGE UPDATE: Before or after reading this analysis, please read Dr. Bouffard's direct quotes just given to me in an interview (10:30 AM, 9-11) AFTER the Boston Globe story was run!

If not in letter, in spirit, at the very least by severely distorting the nature of the sourced quotes in order to fulfill a dishonest narrative.

How do I know? Because this time, in this case, they interviewed INDC's expert forensic source, and I have since asked him specific details about his quotes to various mainstream reporters that indicated a retreat on his initial judgment. Here's what the Globe says under the ridiculously dishonest headline "Authenticity backed on Bush documents:"

But specialists interviewed by the Globe and some other news organizations say the specialized characters used in the documents, and the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s, when Bush was a first lieutenant. Philip D. Bouffard, a forensic document examiner in Ohio who has analyzed typewritten samples for 30 years, had expressed suspicions about the documents in an interview with the New York Times published Thursday, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe Friday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

For starters, square these two sections with my analysis and clarification that follow:

"the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s"

and

"But Bouffard told the Globe Friday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time."

(Bolded emphasis mine)

I interviewed Dr. Bouffard several times; in no way, shape or form did he say that the type formats were "common," or that the typewriters with the capability to produce this font were in "wide use." In fact, he said just the opposite, that it was possible on only perhaps one(?) machine with a potentially matching font that was highly improbable for the work being performed in a National Guard office.

Did he say "could have?" Yes, based on today's analysis, he said it was possible, but he also said that the chance was unlikely. Remote. To directly quote Dr. Bouffard, as of very late this afternoon:

"Because it takes such a stretch to come up with all of the remote possibilities involved in creating the (CBS) document, it is much more likely that it is a computer generated document."

That quote was given after he re-analyzed the documents, after he admitted to me that yes, it may be possible that an approximation of the CBS fonts could have been produced by an uncommon model of IBM type machine that was not typically intended or used for secretarial work. (UPDATE: After the Interpol fonts)

He also told me this after revealing the Globe's new piece of info that supposedly changed his mind (it did cause him to equivocate, but did not in any stretch of the imagination cause him to flip and "back" the "authenticity"):

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Air Force was possibly going to buy a high-end typesetting machine usually used for high-end print jobs, not typically something used as an office typewriter. The appearance of this memo is noteworthy, but proves nothing about whether the machinery was even actually purchased by the Air Force as a whole, or whether such a high-end specialty machine wound up in a Texas Air National Guard office for use as a secretarial machine.

Also, let's check out this smoking gun memo that was provided to Dr. Bouffard. How can we see the memo? Dr. Bouffard just sent me a copy tonight, after it was forwarded to him by a lone dissenting document examiner named Lynn Huber (its existence was mentioned in my previous post). The terminology looks ok, but he sent it to me in MS Word and it has no official authentication. This is definitive proof? An unverified Word document sent to Dr. Bouffard that was purported to be proof of Air Force product testing in 1969? Without any confirmation of purchase? Once again, in MS Word? It's possible that it's real, but let's see the originals from Ms. Huber, or her source.

(Important Note: Dr. Bouffard sent this to me as a Word Doc, but as of yet I haven't been able to definitively confirm with him that this was the format in which he received it from Ms. Huber. It seems likely, given the time it would take for him to transcribe it into a Word table, but I will verify this ASAP. It is also possible that the miltary provided it to Ms. Huber in this format, but at this point, it's just wild speculation).

Once again, it's possible that the Air Force Memo is legit, but this in no way verifies that the machine was ever purchased by the Air Force in general, or that it would have been available to a Texas Air National Guard unit.

Moving on with more from the Globe ...

As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM.

(Emphasis mine)

The Boston Globe does not address the fact that Dr. Bouffard (and other forensic examiners) considered these specialty balls and keys to be non-routine. (Note: Perhaps this angle in the Globe's account is relevant, in light of other era documents that appear to have used the superscript "th")

The Globe's money quote:

''You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer," Bouffard said.

I can verify that Dr. Bouffard made that statement, because he also said something similar (to that effect) to me. Combined with the Globe's headline, "Authenticity backed on Bush documents," it certainly closes the matter right?

Wrong.

I will repeat Dr. Bouffard's contexual opinion that was communicated to me several times during our last conversation, a sentiment completely ignored and omitted by Francie Latour and Michael Rezendes of the Boston Globe:

"Because it takes such a stretch to come up with all of the remote possibilities involved in creating the (CBS) document, it is much more likely that it is a computer-generated document."

He qualified the statement with the outside possibility that a machine exists that could produce a "similar" font, certainly, though he still found several structural font inconsistencies when he compared the Selectric font with the font in the CBS Documents. 100% certainty of forgery based on these inconsistencies was impossible because of the poor quality of the reproduction, but some discrepancies were still noticeable to Dr. Bouffard (based on font-matching analysis alone, mind you).

In short, he was professional and cautious, but refused to certify absolutely that it was impossible that the docs were real based on only his analysis of the font characteristics. He left open the possibility that the docs are real, but very clearly expressed to me that he doubted that this was the case, and he mentioned several other forensics colleagues that believe that the memo is a forgery (including Bill Flynn, who was consulted by ABC News).

The Boston Globe is distorting his testimony to the point of dishonesty.

Read the headline again: Authenticity backed on Bush documents.

In truth, nearly the opposite sentiment is true. A perfectly honest headline would read "Expert Confirms Possibility That Documents Are Real, But Still Considers it "Likely That it is a Computer-Generated Document."

I believe that The Boston Globe is lying via omission.

Read my two interviews, and tell me which version of testimony is more complete.

Note: I hate to put Dr. Bouffard in the middle of a credibility tug of war. He is a semi-retired man with heavy family obligations that take up a large chunk of time, and he doesn't have time to deal with pestering, all-day analysis from volumes of reporters. But I stake my personal credibility on the fact that I have not misrepresented what Dr. Bouffard told me. Did he change his initial analysis after getting the documents from Ms. Huber? Yes, he became less certain and admitted an outside possibility of authenticity based on new information. But this is not authentication, and the spirit of his analysis is quite the opposite.

Furthermore, full disclosure, am I biased? In this case, against the media, yes, most definitely. Did I underplay Dr. Bouffard's equivocation? I don't think so, but you be the judge. I have pursued this story based on a belief that the memos didn't "feel right," no doubt aided by my belief that certain news outlets are biased themselves. But I would not misrepresent this legitimate interview to fulfill a narrative.

It is simply amazing to not just suspect media bias and misrepresentation, but actually experience it as an active witness in the story. Readers must also note that along with 60 Minutes, the Globe is the newspaper that initially ran with these documents; they have an incredible interest in burying the forgery story. You be the judge.

UPDATE: My characterizations are called into question almost immediately in the comments. A few points against me and my rebuttals:

Argument #1: "You're misreading the GLOBE article. It does not say that the specialized characters and the typeface were "common." It says that they were "common to" -- in the sense of shared by, or belonging to -- "electric typewriters in wide use in the early '70's."

Indicating that the machines were in "wide use," along with the corresponding ability to create Times Roman documents is a clear misrepresentation of Dr. Bouffard's judgment about the ubiquity of these machines.

Argument #2: "By the way, you should fix your repeated references to the Composer as an "uncommon model of typesetting machine," "high-end typesetting machine usually used for high-end print jobs," etc. That's just nonsense. "

That's how it was represented to me by Dr. Bouffard. To be clear, it's a "typewriter-like" machine (albeit heavy), but it was typically used for higher-end applications that demanded camera-ready documents (again, this is from Dr. Bouffard's recollection). To be clear, it was either a very high-end typewriter (not commonly used for office work) or a very low-end typesetter used for publication work.

I will update (to a certain point), as cogent arguments against my analysis appear.

UPDATE: Allah notes something about the memo ostensibly provided by the Air Force:

There are two points here. First, because Bouffard apparently was given a Microsoft Word document of the chronology instead of a photocopy of the original chronology dating from 1969, one might question the information's reliability. But even if you accept its reliability, note that the April 1969 entry doesn't say that the Air Force was testing Selectric Composers. It says it was testing Selectric typewriters and Magnetic Tape Selectric Composers. According to the IBM Composer hobbyist website, those two machines are entirely different from the Selectric Composer. Click here and read the author's description of the SC; it clearly distinguishes the Selectric typewriter, which apparently wasn't able to produce proportionally spaced fonts. Now click here and have a look at the Magnetic Tape Selectric Composer. Look like something you'd expect to see in an Air Force officer's office?

Read the rest of his analysis.

Perhaps this confusion accounts for the disagreement over my characterization of the Selectric in question as an "uncommon model of typesetting machine?"

UPDATE: The Globe added a line of justification about Interpol fonts:

Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

I spoke to Dr. Bouffard about the additional Interpol fonts, and by my notes the results were equivocal. By my notes, he also still noted character differences in the CBS font vs, Selectric Composer font that are only impossible to 100% verify due to the poor quality of the document.

BOTTOM LINE: Nothing on either side is definitive, but the characterization by the Globe that my source somehow verified the authenticity of the documents is a lie. I stress now and will continue to stress that an anlysis by a panel of forensics experts using documents released by CBS needs to take place. As this tally of expert opinion indicates, this action is certainly warranted.

HUGE UPDATE: After reading this analysis, please read Dr. Bouffard's direct quotes just given to me in an interview (10:30 AM, 9-11) AFTER the Boston Globe story was run!

Posted by Bill at September 11, 2004 03:00 AM | TrackBack (13)

Comments

Thanks for staying up late to respond to the piece. Of course your discussion is more thorough, fair, and likely. Especially given how unlikely a candidate the Composer is.

Posted by: Layman at September 11, 2004 03:32 AM

Bill:

For starters, square these two sections:

"the type format, were common to electric typewriters in wide use in the early 1970s"

I expect that if their feet are held to the fire, they'll simply say "we meant that ELECTRONIC TYPEWRITERS were in wide use, not the type format."

It is technically accurate, although their sentence structure leave room for broad interpretation.

Boston Globe Lied? C'mon, that's not much of a scoop. ;)

Keep up the great work.

Posted by: krakatoa at September 11, 2004 03:36 AM

Krakatoa -

Did you read the post? How does that ONE part constitute the basis of my argument that they "lied."

Look at the headline that they put forth.

And it's exclusive based on the AF documents ...

Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 11, 2004 03:57 AM

When this story broke i remembered a cool website from a couple of years back. I finally found it. It's called What the Font (www.whatthefont.com). In short you give it an image, it tells you the font. I tried it, and all i could get it to come up with is, FAX font - well it's in poor condition (the image i had). If this doesn't work it gives you another option. http://www.identifont.com
You give it all the features of the fonts in the documents and it comes up with a list of possible fonts. I tried this one too. Although it's late and i might have chosen wrong choices. It came up with PAX and Albertina. (Both newer than 1980), although it doesn't mean that times new roman isn't the font - it's just another way to add another layer of truth.

Teri
a Democrat whose voting for Bush because i'm disgusted by the behaviour of the Democratic party. And I know i'm not the only one.

Posted by: Teri at September 11, 2004 04:04 AM

You're misreading the GLOBE article. It does not say that the specialized characters and the typeface were "common." It says that they were "common to" -- in the sense of shared by, or belonging to -- "electric typewriters in wide use in the early '70's."

You could certainly argue that the IBM typewriters in question were not "in wide use" at the time (although my school paper, which could not afford professional typesetting, had a Composer that we used for compositing text). Of course, if the Huber document turns out to be legitimate, the argument becomes moot.

By the way, you should fix your repeated references to the Composer as an "uncommon model of typesetting machine," "high-end typesetting machine usually used for high-end print jobs," etc. That's just nonsense. No one who ever saw a typesetting machine could possibly mistake it for a typewriter; they're two different animals. And the IBM Composer, although quite a fancy (and pricy) model for its time, was most definitely a typewriter -- as you can see by clicking here and scrolling down to the year 1966.

Posted by: Simbaud at September 11, 2004 04:04 AM

The composer is most definitely a typ-writer-like machine, but it was not used for office work (such as typing memos) because it took too long.

I still want to see the inventory records from the airbase during the years in question.

Posted by: John at September 11, 2004 04:15 AM

I saw that AF purchasing thing orginate at-guess where-DU. One of those idiots pulled it off of Google sometime this afternoon. I can't imagine how else it would have gotten to this document expert if it weren't thru there. It's entirely irrelevant-the AF evaluated a machine in 1969 that could possibly have created the memos? I'm sure it must have been available to an 0-5 in the TANG 3 years later, then, and said machine was entirely capable of replicating MS Word. Lemme type this out..B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.

The left is really circling the wagons around this one. Kos, Atrios, the discussion boards...they're in full reality denial mode. If we (well, the royal "we", I guess, mostly meaning you) can punch this thru and get CBS to admit defeat it'll be a fatal blow to the entire internet left's intellectual honesty. Well, if they're still interested in keeping score, that is.

Posted by: bryan at September 11, 2004 04:22 AM

Just to riff on this a bit...

If the left, and by that I don't just mean DU but the center left like the Globe and CBS, don't straighten up on this tomorrow, I'm never going to give them a shred of credibility or notice again. I'm really going to go into full moonbat-a la-Bush mode, and regard anything at all that comes out of their mouths as probable lies and misrepresentations. I really don't want to have to vote for Bush-REALLY. I don't like his record on fiscal responsibility, health care, drug policy, the environment...I could go on. But I will certainly do everything I can to keep the like of the people at the Globe and CBS and Democratic Underground as far from the levers of power as is humanly possible.

Posted by: bryan at September 11, 2004 04:30 AM

#1 - "You're misreading the GLOBE article. It does not say that the specialized characters and the typeface were "common." It says that they were "common to" -- in the sense of shared by, or belonging to -- "electric typewriters in wide use in the early '70's."

Are you kidding? In "wide use?" That doesn't mean "common?" It doesn't misrepresent the intent Dr. Bouffard's take on the machine's ubiquity? Give me a break.

#2: "By the way, you should fix your repeated references to the Composer as an "uncommon model of typesetting machine," "high-end typesetting machine usually used for high-end print jobs," etc. That's just nonsense. "

nonsense? That's how it was represented to me by Dr. Bouffard. It's a typewriter "like" machine (albeit heavy), but it was typically used for higher-end applications that demanded camera-ready documents (again, this is from Dr. Bouffard's recollection).

Not my opinion, just conveying his characterization.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 11, 2004 04:34 AM

Great work, Bill. Don't let the bastards get you down.

Posted by: Chris at September 11, 2004 04:43 AM

"You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer,"

what the heck, maybe it was actually handwritten or drawn with a pencil in his mouth or between his toes :D - you can't DEFINITLY rule out the (though frozen hell unlikly) possibility, so I want and I want and I want still trust Rather and St. Claus over all you evil minded fact checking pajama brown skirts |)

Bush lied! (the MSM told me so) :)

Posted by: christian at September 11, 2004 05:46 AM

Several other sites have looked into whether an IBM Selectric Composer could create these documents and concluded they could not.

See:

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

and

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/ibm-introduced-proportional-spacing.html

Posted by: Kevin at September 11, 2004 05:59 AM

The word doc properties show that it was created on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 8:54:00 AM. The author is FRANKLINN of HQ SSG.

If the various composer descriptions are accurate, then why would anyone use a device that required one to type everything twice for the sake of proportionally spaced text? Call me lazy, but "camera ready" CYA would not be worth the extra work.

Posted by: rw at September 11, 2004 06:59 AM

Bill,

Keep at it. No news story has infuriated me like this news story. Anyone who is read must report. The idea that Dan Rather can get away with a bold faced lie when the evidence is overwhelmingly against him is unacceptable. This is a free country. We are not subordinated to the whims of dictators, nor should we be suboridnated to the fantasies of news anchors.

Microsoft Word is the smoking gun. The idea that a primitive word processor from 1973 can generate a pixel by pixel match with a default installation of Microsoft Word is preposterous.

Bill, I can scream all day long and only about 200 people will read. You reach more. Keep at it. The truth will prevail.

I think you, LGF, and Powerline are really making a mark in history here.

Posted by: chris at americanlibertyjournal.com at September 11, 2004 07:05 AM

Sorry for the typos, but you get the point, damn it! Damn it!

Posted by: chris at September 11, 2004 07:06 AM

This is so freaking Orwellian. If anybody loads the word documents over the "orginals" in photoshop, picks the center word, scales and rotates the new doc's version to cover that word and then jump out of the zoom and sees everything lock up, there is no way you could argue with a straight face they are real. But no, it's "move along citizens, nothing to see here, Bush lies, move along." I don't think I've been more digusted with the press in my life. To make believe there are magical typewriters that have the same font foundry, hint tables for the characters, and line spacing as Word 97-XP is unreal.

Posted by: Brad at September 11, 2004 08:17 AM

My jaw hit the floor when I saw that Globe headline this morning. I can't believe they're going to let Rather take them down.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at September 11, 2004 09:23 AM

Go Bill Go!

Keep up the great work, and thanks again for doing it.

Posted by: Paul (in DC) at September 11, 2004 09:24 AM

Keep up the good work, Bill. I hope that your traffic skyrockets from the publicity.

Now, a question: Has anybody contacted IBM about this? Wouldn't they be in a position to answer whether any of their machines could have produced this memo? Will they comment?

Posted by: Erin at September 11, 2004 10:00 AM

For what it's worth, I used one of those proportionally-spaced typewriters on a temp job in 1980 or so. (Not the magnetic tape one, just an electric typewriter with proportional spacing.)

It was a huge pain to use. I was working for a woman who used it to produce sales letters. There were two space bars, one that went two clicks and one that went three, and the backspace did one, so you could produce spaces of one, two, three or four clicks by using a combination of the space bars and the backspace.

If you made a typo, you had to absolutely correct it on the next letter. With a regular fixed-width typewriter, you could space back several letters, use your white-out of choice and type the new letter over it in the same space, but with the proportional font, if you didn't catch it immediately, you could only do that if the wrong letter and the right letter were the same width (m and w, or d and h, etc.).

She told me if I made more than one mistake to just take the letter out and start over - and not to worry about how long it took. A three paragraph letter that would have normally taken ten minutes at most took at least an hour to type with that monster.

No way some fighter pilot guy was using a typewriter like that - he would have heaved it out the window.

Posted by: Teri L. at September 11, 2004 10:08 AM

Hugh Hewitt found a Rice University professor who said there was definitely kerning. The "fo" combination is key. So, I grabbed an "fo" combination from one of the documents and an "fo" combination from the IBM Composer Manual. The results are here. We report, you decide. By the way, I am in my pajamas right now. So take that, CBS!

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2004 10:29 AM

You know it just dawned on me. CBS can fix this problem without even revealing its source. Just call whoever had access to these personal files and ask him to get some more. After all the man would have to have more then these files in his personal files. Just go grab some more...they should be similar and we will see if they look the same.

Posted by: LoydRight at September 11, 2004 10:33 AM

Check out the Challenge at LGF. Great work so far

A rather (NPI) fair article from LAtimes

Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story

A retired Guard major general -- who Rather said in an interview would corroborate the CBS account -- instead told The Times that he believed the memos from the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian were not real.

But a CBS news executive insisted that Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was Killian's immediate supervisor, had changed his story.

Of course, CBS would say that:

HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS

According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were "handwritten" and after CBS read him excerpts he said, "well if he wrote them that's what he felt."

Of course, the moonbats at daily Kos are swarming over a weak Boston Globe article

But Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

That's the whole argument, nobody seems to have bother to have trotted out such a machine and produced a duplicate memo. Why not? Because they will fail on the line spacing and apostrophes.

The problem for the AWOL club is that they are unable (so far) to definitively clear the documents (not even taking on all of the other technical failures of same), and when they try to run to a he said/she said type of argument (as Rather did last night) they run smack dab into the widow, the son, the daughter of Barnes, and now Hodges all claiming that:

1. They don't believe the memos are real
2. CBS played dirty tricks on them
3. CBS spiked their stories
4. Now this - Staudt's timeline

How long can Rather and CBS stand up against this storm? Great drama awaits ...

CBS Quote from LA Times: "We shouldn't have to be be doing this over the Internet," Rile said. "This sounds like a case that could be resolved very quickly if you get the evidence and examine it; if you get the original."

Shorter:
Make it STOP!

Posted by: jdwill at September 11, 2004 10:40 AM

I'm with John, Bill. There just have to be inventory records from that period that will show exactly what machines Killian had access to.

Also, the several attempts I've seen by the Composer to replicate the memo have all failed for one reason or another. And you're right -- the machine Killian was working on, for it to have produced this memo, would have had to combine all of the most unlikely attributes of high end typewriters of the period, plus be used (incredibly) for the typing of personal memos.

The Air Force memo the Globe trots out proves less than nothing.

Posted by: Jeff G at September 11, 2004 10:50 AM

Hi there,

FYI, I imagine you can corroborate the Word document at this military website:

http://tinyurl.com/3ofwa

Regards.

Posted by: Yermum at September 11, 2004 11:10 AM

I am sure your expert is exhausted but one last yes or no question. Is the "fo" combination in one of the memos kerned or not?

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2004 11:44 AM

In the retrospect, I am glad the Boston Globe did this. Not only will CBS be going down but also the Boston Globe/New York Times. ABC and WAPO will not touch ANY Kerry leaks with a ten foot pole either. David hasn't slayed Goliath yet but the slingshot is in motion.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2004 11:53 AM

You should check the properties of that Word document. Often the creator of the document is listed. It might be of interest to find the person who created that .doc

Posted by: Smacko at September 11, 2004 12:03 PM

Rich,
Here's a document you should take a gander at.
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/121/ibmrd1201C.pdf

The Composer does kerning. On manual typewriters, "kerning" is referred to as "escapement adjustment". In the "fo" pair, the "f" does overlap the "o" slightly. BTW, the IBM doc has a much clearer block of Composer test text (with an "fo" pair). See page 5 of the PDF.

Posted by: Doug at September 11, 2004 12:10 PM

Bill,

Excellent work on this.

On the word document you received. I too was suspicious.

I first opened up the File Version box (Word often incorporates versions and initials of people that create and then edit documents), hoping to find Lehane, Chris. No such luck. I then tried the Properties Menu hoping for Kerry,J. Instead, FRANKLINN. And no version history.

I then used my super forensic investigation powers (i.e., google). The document appears, oddly enough, legitimate.

I googled "Air Force Data Systems Design Center" (in quotes) and came up with the link (at number 1):

https://web1.ssg.gunter.af.mil/ho/documents/chronologies/Air%20Force%20Data%20Systems%20Design%20Center%201969.doc

That's certainly a military address resolving to the air force; it leads to a document that appears to be the same (and has the same Word Author, FRANKLINN).

The version on the web also has the evaluation of the Magnetic Tape Selectric Composer being completed on the same date.

Now as you say, this doesn't really mean a lot even if this document is genuine. Of considerably more interest would be if the TANG actually had the more basic type-writer style selectric composer, and this document appears to shed no light on that either way.

Regards

Posted by: Holmwood at September 11, 2004 12:40 PM

Where are the original documents?

CBS admits they only have copies.

WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS????

Posted by: Partisan Politcal Operative 11372 at September 11, 2004 01:06 PM

have been following the docu-drama with great interest.
I copied the post from indc regarding the Globes misquoting Brouffard on the democrat underground (VERY bored today). They have a thread there that is crowing because they think that the critics of the veracity of the docs have been discredited-quoting the Globe article.
Two minutes after posting, the message was deleted and I was banned from the site. LMAO

DON"T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS

Posted by: ieddyi at September 11, 2004 01:21 PM

More and more, I am reminded of ROsemary Wood's explanation of how she accidentally erased those 17 minutes of Nixon's "smoking gun" Watergate tape.

Sure, it could have happened that way. And drug-crazed hippies COULD have killed Nicole Simpson, Hitler COULD still be alive, and aliens MIGHT walk among us.

But I'm willing to take bets.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at September 11, 2004 03:01 PM

You People are great. Keep up the good work, no matter where it leads.

Posted by: jim p at September 11, 2004 03:02 PM

WHY DON'T THEY JUST CHECK OTHER RECORDS FROM 6 MONTHS PRIOR AND AFTER KILLIANS LETTERS AND SEE HOW MANY PAPERS SHOW UP WITH THE SAME TYPE. ALSO DID ANYONE LOOK AT THE NUMERAL 1'S THEY ARE SO DIDTINCT THEY WOULD SHOW UP SO EASY ON ALL OF THE TYPED LETTERS FROM THAT CENTER. THE GUARD UNIT SHOULD HAVE LOTS OF OTHER LETTTERS DONE BY KILLIAN AND SHOULD BE EASIER TO CHECK.

Posted by: BARB KATH at September 11, 2004 03:25 PM

If only someone could/would look at other documents typed at the TxANG during those times and verify the type style and look also at the back of the document for embossing (little dents made by commas, periods, etc. one could easily end this frikkin MADNESS . As an ex IBM Customer engineer in the Typewriter Division I can also state that the Selectric Composer was often down for repairs and NO ONE would have tolerated a machine like that especially some military grunt!!!!

Posted by: johndeerebilly at September 11, 2004 05:28 PM

I took you up on contacting the Boston Globe's Ombudsman, and here is what I wrote:

Subject: The Globe Shamelessly "Reports" Anti-Bush Falsehoods as News

I join Dr. Philip Bouffard in condemning The Globe for totally misrepresenting his statements regarding the authenticity of the documents that CBS News purports to prove George W. Bush failed his National Guard requirements. Where as your staff writers, Francie Latour and Michael Rezendes, make the apparently definitive claim that

"...Bouffard told the Globe yesterday that after further study, he now believes the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time",

Dr. Bouffard tells indcjournal.com just the opposite, that

"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it...but after looking at this more, there are still many more things that say this is bogus...there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ...More things were looked into; more things about IBM options. Even if you bought special (superscripting) keys, it's not right. There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter."

These writers (Francie Latour and Michael Rezendes) ought to be fired for lack of integrity with respect to objective reporting. But, then, loose interpretation of the facts and creative writing seem to be the norm at The Boston Globe ever since 1973 when its now-discredited ex-columnist Mike Barnicle began blazing that high journalistic trail.

In my humble opinion, the Globe has become nothing more that a pathetic, partisan, political organ of the Democratic machine spewing anti-American, pro-socialistic propaganda that unwittingly undermines our nation's security.

Oscar Savaryn
Greenbelt., Maryland

Posted by: O. Savaryn at September 12, 2004 02:09 AM

"In my humble opinion, the Globe has become nothing more that a pathetic, partisan, political organ of the Democratic machine spewing anti-American, pro-socialistic propaganda that unwittingly undermines our nation's security."

Statements like this overstate cases and undermine arguments.

If you are going to accuse an organization of misrepresentation, you should make sure you present your case on its merits and avoid marginalizing yourself with things like "pro-socialistic propaganda."

Posted by: J. LeRoy at September 12, 2004 03:01 AM

Has any one checked whether Jason Blair has been recently employed by CBS News Division????

Posted by: Marlowe Anderson at September 12, 2004 11:59 PM

The Executive typewriter I used 1972-1976 was refused by the other secretaries in the office. I found it fascinating...

I don't remember centering with it. I could have, though, more or less. See, I was taught to center by tabbing to the center of the line and then reciting the letters in pairs, backspacing once for each pair. For example, for the word "Executive" _on a monospace machine_: e-x [bs] e-c [bs] u-t [bs] i-v [bs] -- and the line would have been half a space (a 20th or a 24th of an inch) off. On the Executive itself: as the capital E is four units wide, back-space twice; x, e, c, u are all three units wide, so back-space three times for each pair of letters; t and i are two units each, so back-space twice; v and e are three units each, so back-space three times.

The Executive also had a way to line up for correcting. The center "lever" poked a thin wire up in front of the card holder (the clear plastic that curved in front of the platen) just to the right of the letter; lined up with an "e" or a "c," it just touched the ends of the curve. One learned what it looked like with the other letters and used either Liquid Paper or Ko-Rec-Type.

But the Executive could not have produced these memos.

Posted by: Cecelia Armstrong at September 13, 2004 12:31 PM

Monday: 09/13/04

*** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ***

Immediate CORRECTION to the Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: stone�wall
Pronunciation: 'stOn -"wol
Function: verb
intransitive senses
1 chiefly British : to engage in obstructive parliamentary debate or delaying tactics
2 : to be uncooperative, obstructive, or evasive
transitive senses : to refuse to comply or cooperate with
3 : to anchor the CBS Evening News : to correspond for CBS 60 Minutes II
4 : to act as CBS News President
- stone�wall�er noun
1 : Dan Rather
2 : Andrew Heyward

Posted by: gP at September 13, 2004 04:04 PM

I read CBS got a 'technology expert' named Bill Glennon who says the memos might be real.

BILL GLENNON IS A TYPEWRITER REPAIRMAN?

Time magazine believes this??

who leftist will go to lengths to lie.

Posted by: Maria at September 14, 2004 05:18 AM

oops I meant "how" not "who"

I should be read 'How Leftists will go to lengths to lie.'

Posted by: Maria at September 14, 2004 05:19 AM