September 11, 2004
Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe
Posted by Bill
I just interviewed Dr. Bouffard again, and he's angry that the Globe has misrepresented him. He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted, and he wants me to correct the record. He did not change his mind, and he and his colleagues are becoming more certain that these documents are forgeries.
Instead of providing my analysis of our conversation, I'm largely going to transcribe his unaltered quotes:
(I'm dynamically updating as I transcribe quotes, so keep refreshing)
"What the (Boston Globe) did now sort of pisses me off, because now I have people calling me and e-mailing me, and calling me names, saying that I changed my mind. I did not change my mind at all!"
"I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it takes to clear this up, through your internet site, or whatever."
"All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!"
"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 the more information we get and the more my colleagues look at this, we're more convinced that there are significant differences between the type of the (IBM) Composer that was available and the questionable document."
"The (new Selectric) typefaces sent to me invalidated the theory about the foot on the four (originally reported to INDC), 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."
"Any form of kerning may be critical (he hasn't rendered a definitive verdict if there is a form of kerning yet). If there is any type of kerning, it obviously isn't a typewriter or it's definitely a typeset document."
On the Globe and others:
"You talk to someone on the phone and it comes out different than you said!"
On the source of the 1969 Air Force Supply Memo:
Dr. Bouffard received an e-mail from the address of Roy Huber, a noted retired forensic analyst in Ottawa, but a response indicated that it was Lynn Huber.
"I presumed that it was a relative of Roy. The document said that there are fonts from the IBM that don't have the foot on the '4.'"
The e-mail also contained an attachment to possible Selectric fonts that indicated that the "4" had a foot, and the Air Force memo that indicated that the military purchase of such a machine was a possibility.
But since having had more time to analyze the fonts of the Selectric:
"We've looked into more and more IBM options and ... there are all kinds of things that say this isn't a typewriter."
UPDATE: These are all the transcribable quotes that Dr. Bouffard gave me at this time. More as the story develops.
I provide his words, you decide ... but I have come to the definitive conclusion that the Boston Globe misrepresented their main source's testimony to stunningly misleading effect.
Whether or not the docs are even forgeries or not is almost secondary in the media narrative at this point. The fact is, Dr. Bouffard was used as the main source to write the following headline in the Boston Globe:
Authenticity backed on Bush documents
Square that headline with the quotes from their source that are listed above.
UPDATE: Feel free to parse the details of whether the document is fake or not, if that's your passion, but I think that many of you that bother are missing a real point here. At this point, with this angle, the veracity of the document is almost secondary to the Boston Globe's willingness to mislead you into believing that the case is closed.
UPDATE: Also, to be perfectly clear - Dr. Bouffard is not indicating yet that the the docs are definitely fake, he's just cluing me in on a preponderance of indications that it may be likely. Expert analysis is still underway.
Just want to make sure that I don't present a mischaracterization that is the opposite of the Globe's presentation.
Posted by Bill at September 11, 2004 11:00 AM | TrackBack (0)