I think it is time we designated the Globe as our secondary target in this effort.

I hope you tell the good Doctor that he might want to consider each publication before he grants an interview, as there are leftist snakes laying in the grass.

Here's a great comment on the kerning issue:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2004/09/11.html#a5983

Money quotes:
For TrueType, the font system that is predominant on Windows and Macintosh systems and where you find the Times New Roman font, kerning is built into the font. The font itself contains information about pairs of letters that need kerning to look fine, and how much to kern them. Thus, you will see kerning on a document written in Microsoft Word even if you leave alone that "kerning" setting that the genius Kos managed to find when playing around with Word.

Did a typewriter in 1972 have built-in automatic kerning? Let's not get bloody ridiculous. Even if you could dig up some advanced, expensive equipment back then that could with a lot of tweaking recreate these documents, what would be the chance of a simple military memo from a small office being written on it? And match perfectly a document written in Word today? Zilch.

This is like seeing a Boing 747 in a movie supposedly from World War II, and some partisan defenders insisting that really, jet engines existed and were in use back then so it could have been genuine.

I think part of the strategy of CBS is covering their own rear end and that of the Kerry Kamp is to simply obfuscate these technical issues that many in the general public do not understand.

One problem in making the case of this being a forgery is that the credible experts cited will not make a 100% definitive call without seeing the original. And we can be sure that CBS will not release what they have to independent experts for evaluation. So technically there will always be this sliver of doubt that CBS will exploit to salvage itself.

What CBS does not want to do is engage in the debate over what Killian's family has said, or what Hodges has now said, or in the debate over the likelihood of Killian using such an advanced machine to type a personal memo, when this man, according to his own widow, didn't even type.

CBS's defense is to try to prove that there existed at least one machine in that day capable of creating some of the characteristics in these forgeries. But they don't get into the likelihood of Killian ever having access to that, or the complicated operation that one would have to perform to create these characteristics.

The also don't get into the idea of perfect centering, or the fact that it would be near impossible on any typewriter, even one using Times New Roman font, to create a doc that perfectly matches today's version of MS Word.

Basically, CBS and the Boston Globe are engaging in the same verbal sleight of hand that good defense attorneys use when defending guilty clients to create reasonable doubt.

I can personally attest that it is impossible to know whether the CBS memos are fraudulent because so many changes occur when one copies memos from their original condition

Since I can’t currently afford my own computer, I generally have to type my documents on an old typewriter I still have from my college days. Because I want my documents to appear to have been written in Microsoft Word, I take them to my local Kinkos. After 1 or 2 copies, the apostrophes became curled and the superscripts start to slowly rise relative to the rest of the text. After 3 or 4 copies, the type becomes proportional and the line breaks start to correspond with modern computer programs. If I’m not yet out of change, I continue copying the document until I defy you to distinguish it from a Microsoft Word document.

Remember the Boston Globe printed pornographic photos with the claim they were pictures of prisoner abuse in Iraq, AND they misquoted one of the Swiftvets to make it sound like he was withdrawing his statement.

They're not a trustworthy paper.

Hey - reinforce the message. Great postings but KERRY passed forged documents to CBS. When will Kerry's ass be put on the line???

Just a thought, but if you quit going to Kinkos for things like this, and just turned in typewritten paper instead, you might be able to save enough money for your own computer.

The Boston Globe is a pathetic rag. Frankly, they have been caught many times doing this type of thing. All we want is the truth. Thank you for your courage Dr. Bouffard.

One voice is missing in all this - IBM's.

Somewhere in the bowels of that org, they have the information.

--On the Globe and others:

"You talk to someone on the phone and it comes out different than you said!"--

Welcome to our world, Dr.!

My fear here is that CBS can stonewall in perpetuity unless someone either files charges or a lawsuit (at which point if it isn't immediately thrown out, the plaintiff would be entitled to discovery and the original documents or the best available copy).

The only person with an obvious case is of course George W. Bush who could sue for access to the possibly fraudulent documents. Clearly he has a case if these are forgeries.

The problem is he isn't going to do that. His concern is winning an election, not bringing down CBS and Bush would probably prefer that this whole thing go away. He's already beating Kerry.

So unless we could get criminal charges filed, who else could sue? I'm not Killian's wife or son could sue.

Hodges probably couldn't sue.

So, a Lt. Col. who doesn't know how to type knew how to work a high-end difficult machine?

How many other memos did the Lt. Col. type?

Was it his procedure that he type his own memos?

Thoughtful critic: interesting observation - but do your centered headings drift right to the point where they exactly coincide with MS Word? Do your margins adjust to precisely the Word default margins? Do your memos deal with someone who retired a year earlier? Is your postoffice box 34567? Do your signatures cut off abruptly? Do you give the wrong required physical date? Do you refer to non-existent manual provisions?

And have you tried this with money?

"How many other memos did the Lt. Col. type?

Was it his procedure that he type his own memos?"

Good points... and to HIMSELF no less... I don't know about you guys, but when I make notes (for files), even at work, I don't put a lot of time and effort into them, given they are for my own personal files.

I hope it isn't considered uncouth to provide a URL for another blog here, but these folks have actually done the experiment. They found someone with an old IBM Selectric Composer. At this link, you will find their results:

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

It appears they couldn't reproduce the faked memos.

I think that a substantial fraction of internet users now owe Bill and Dr. Bouffard a beer. They have gone way beyond the call of duty to give us insights into some documents and also into the workings of the mainstream media when it reports on politically controversial subjects.

Since you are one of the leads on the CBS documents story I thought I would e-mail you with an idea that I think the blogosphere should get behind. Since both Gary Killian, Jerry Killian's son, and his mother, Jerry Killian's widow, believe those documents were not written by Mr. Killian, they need to do more than what they've done so far.

I think they should be urged to write a letter to CBS demanding that the best copies of the documents be released for review by independent experts and send copies of the letter to all the major media, especially ABC news and the Washington Post. They could also state they will take all legal avenues available to obtain this outcome.

Trent Walsh
Austin, Texas

Sandy P, not only that, but one has to ask if it was normal procedure for people to use an expensive, high-end, difficult-to-use machine just to type a memo.

It used to be that we needed a free press in order to keep the government honest, and now we need the blogosphere to keep the press honest.

The general public generally will not understand the 'technical' problems with the memos. However, they can easily understand what Jerry Slover at the Dallas Morning News reported. 'Staudt', named in the August 18, 1973 memo pressuring Killian to sugar coat Bush's evaluations was not even in the Guard at that time. He retired in March 1972. The Dallas Morning News has a copy of his discharge papers in hand to prove it.

I'm sure a lot of folks are having fun arguing over whether or not the alleged correspondence was written on an electric typewriter in 1972.
I'm a retired AF Reserve officer. Let's not forget that official Air Force correspondence uses letterheads where all characters are capitalized and the first line reads "DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE". See the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/10-2_2000_Personnel_File.pdf
Do the people who believe the Killian "documents" are genuine think that he would have omitted the normal first line in his letterhead? Does anyone have original official AF correspondence that doesn't have "DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE" in its letterhead?

If you want to see what an IBM Mag Card Composer looks like take a look at this. Yeah, this would be the kind of thing in a Lt. Colonel's office who has a reputation of being a luddite. Riiiight.

Couldn't this matter be resolved by simply requesting records that could determine whether or not the Texas National Guard had office machines of this nature in their office ? I really doubt that the did and further I think this is just another case of media bias.

Because I want my documents to appear to have been written in Microsoft Word, I take them to my local Kinkos. After 1 or 2 copies, the apostrophes became curled and the superscripts start to slowly rise relative to the rest of the text. After 3 or 4 copies, the type becomes proportional and the line breaks start to correspond with modern computer programs.

Dan Rather must be posting on this board, because the above is pure BS. All recopying does is reduce the quality of the original, not reformat it into Word.

Unless, perhaps, the copier is wearing a magic lucky hat. Hmmm, maybe it's not Rather after all...

Sandy P and Anne, if I may add: Why would someone's memo to one's self which presumably was found in one's own personal file be a copy of a copy of a copy?

Since Dan Rather is operating as Kerry's running mate. I think we should set up a 527 to campaign for them as a write-in vote. Kerry/Rather '04

Bill,

If you are still looking for a corroborating source for the 69 Air Force Supply Memo, you should check the link I provided in the comments to the previous post.

This links to a google cache of a military site that has the same doc.

http://tinyurl.com/3ofwa

You should update with this info.

San Francisco Chronicle has picked up the Boston Globe "experts think documents authentic" story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL

interestingly, one of the SFC cover stories is about how local teachers have been handling the 9/11 anniversary. A teacher is quoted as saying that they dont want to rehash the actual 9/11 attacks, calling it "wallowing". Instead, they are going to talk with the kids about how the President is using 9/11 to get re-elected.

PS. here is useful link to Google News
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html&scoring=d

Sarcasm, Jim. That was sarcasm.

As I noted on my site, we're witnessing the media's engagement with the postmodern turn at its most cynical.

This is now a fight over how facts are reported, how truths are told...

Come on Jim and others questioning that one post, where's your sense of humor. That post is a joke, and a pretty witty and funny at that. Go back and read it again, do you really think that stuff happens when you make copies.

Mr. Vee - I think the answer to your "who besides Bush could sue" is Staudt. Besides Bush, who is being impugned by these fakes? I wonder how old he is / long he will remain silent on the issue?

Ok, as interesting as the typeface issue is, the fact that the documents have been copied over and over again makes it hard to establish for certain if the documents real or fakes.

So, I have a simple test that might help a little. Let’s look at the margins. My recollection (confirmed by digging out an old copy of an USAF Air University manual AU-22 on "Communicating to Manage in Tomorrow's Air Force" Third Edition, 1977) is that all Air Force correspondence uses 1 inch margins on the left and right. MS Word default setting is 1.25 inches on the left and right.

If the documents in question match up with MS Word default margins, then the author would have had to reset the margins from 1 inch if he were using a typewriter in an Air Force (or ANG) office in 1972 or 73 to create a 1.25 inch margin to write a personal memo. Does that make sense? Not really. If the margins are off, it doesn't mean the memos are necessarily fakes, but it does add one more improbable action to the chain of improbabilities.

If Thoughtful Critic can't afford a computer, how did he post on the site...Lighten up folks, he was injecting sarcastic humor

One thing the Boston Globe story accomplished is that Dr. Bouffard is now "credentialled". This tees up any further quotes (much like the Internet ad with McCain in it teed it up for the RNC).

Hmmm.

If you want the opinion of a guy who runs an IBM Selectric hobby site Selectric. The guy has a few examples of text including one from an IBM Executive.

In his opinion no IBM typewriter did those memos.

If the documents, because they are copies, cannot be proven, 100%, to be forgeries, they cannot be proven to be authentic either. Therefore, Rather/CBS by their own admission, used evidence that MAY have been forged.

CBS' claim that the signatures match, is also being challenged and their own expert has pointed out the difficulty in authenticating signatures from copies; another of their authenticating witnesses (Hodges) says they misled him; they purged testimony from contradictory sources (mother/son); they refused to seek out other witnesses because they might be "pro Bush".

Ben Barnes daughter points out that Barnes has changed his story from 2000, probably to tout his upcoming book. Rather didn't disclose much about Barnes' past and his affiliations. Also, his claim that he helped Bush leap-frog hundreds of other applicants may be disingenuous on its face (Bush was applying to be an officer/pilot, not an enlisted man); I have read Barnes was not yet Lt Gov when Bush was inducted so I'm not sure what influence he had...

Bottom line is that Rather's story is so full of holes (or unasked questions) that it can't possibly be defended as professional jounalism.

It's time to pull out Occam's Razor.

http://carolan.org/MustBelieve.htm

The "kerning" feature that KOS has thrashed about is a an optimization setting in MS Word that allows you to turn kerning off for characters above certain point sizes. What this means is kerning is on by default

As I said, the feature is for time-optimization because the ongoing math surrounding display and print kerning requires a lot of computing horse-power to do (even if the math is faily simple). On the older PCs (386/486s), kerning everything would slow down screen updates, making the program seem slow, frustrating users.

Just open a new document in MS Word and type the words "for" and "my." When you look at what you see on the screen and the printed page, you will see that the "o" is tucked up underneath the "f," and the tail of the "y" is tucked underneath the "m." It is obvious that MS Word kerns on default settings.

Only the highest of high-end typewriters (bordering on type composers) had the ability to do fully-justified text (flush left and right margins, like newspaper columns). This feat, as nice as it is is far below what it takes to do true proprortional typesetting with kerning. Just to do text justification on a manual or electric typewriter would mean you would have to compose each line of text (off the machine), count the words and characters, do the margin math and interdisperse blank spaces (each of uniform size) to give the text the appearance of being (crudely) justified, then actually type it onto the paper! We take all this for granted now, but it was one of the main reasons word processors were invented.

I wrote of the globe when they ran their national guard expose. There was no there there. They had two allegations.

1) Bush did not sign up with a unit in boston, as he normally would have been required.

2) Bush had that 8 month gap.

the second was just recycling old memes long ago debunked EVEN BY THE NT TIMES.

The first, had a subtle admission that a waiver was possible. But no attempt to determine if it was obtained. Furthermore, if you review an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the press (you remember that interview a few months back, right?), he says something about how when he went to HBS, he "worked something out." Its not the magic words 'I got a waiver," but it sure as hell sounds like it is.

So for the Globe to say he didn't fulfill his obligations, when the best they could say is there is a question, was simply dishonest.

You can read all of this over at freespeech.com.

One more thing. Let's face it, this is his hometown newspaper. Beyond liberal or conservative, there is a natural desire to see "their guy" become president.

Ok, I think I have some evidence on the kerning or lack thereof. Quick recap for coherence.

Kerning is where the spacing between two letters is not only proportional, but variably proportional depending on what the letter's neightbors are. so 'Wd' would have a different width than 'dW'. So, if there is _no_ kerning, then a proportionally printed line of text would be exactly the same length if you scrambled the letters. 'Quick brown fox' should be _exactly_ the same length as 'kciuQ nworb xof'.

In a line of kerned text, this is NOT true.

In Word X for Mac, retyping just the first line of the infamous CYA memo:

1. Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I’m having trouble running

Then type exactly the same letters... in a different order. (I did alphabetical, but moved the spaces to every other character)

. a a a a Bb b b d d d eeeeegggHhhhliiillmmnnnnooooooprrrrrSssssssttttuuuuuuuvvy’

The period and the S line up... and the ending apostrophe on the second line is substantially to the left. So some 'kerning' (call it variable proportional type if you like) _is_ happening in the Word mockups.

And getting such a match between two documents where one is making such fine distinctions & the other is presumed to not be possible outside of a printer's office seems... not plausible.

Can this be duplicated outside of the 'lab'?

ChrisC,

You also have to believe that a guy who rarely or ever typed, typed up notes to himself and then signed them. Also, (I think) you would have to believe that the special device used to create the memos was never used before or after the memos in question.

Who could sue or force the issue?
Couldn't the Pentagon get involved if they have any suspicion that someone may have impersonated an officer by forging documents?

Where are the original documents?

CBS admit they only have copies.

WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS????

Hey, recopying at Kinko's is a really neat trick. Like taking an new pair of jeans and washing them several time to produce "designers".

Instead of complaining here, Dr. Bouffard needs to call back the reporter he talked to at the Globe and demand that the record be corrected -- at the same length and in the same spot that the original story appeared. He then needs to call Martin Baron, the Globe's editor, to receive assurances that the false information printed today will be corrected in tomorrow's edition.

I also wonder why so much attention is being given to who these experts plan to vote for in November. Does their political affiliation really have anything to do with their expertise? I know it does with reporters because their loyalties to the Democrats are plainly obvious in everything that they report or choose to report, but it really shouldn't be an issue with 'experts.'

Check out this link to Mother Earth News' 1971 archive on a story about starting a $12,000 a year typing business.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/index.php?page=arc&id=5307

The core equipment needed is a $4,400 (base price) IBM Selectric Composer typesetting typewriter. That's more than many luxury cars cost back then and would have hardly been a piece of office equipment sent to tiny Guard and Reserve bases like Ellington Field at the height of the Vietnam war. This is the equipment the Boston Globe said "could have" been used to create the Bush memos. Boggles the mind.

After four years of active Naval Air duty, including two full tours in-country in Vietnam, I spent two years at the Reserve unit at Ellington. There were certainly no IBM Selectric typewriters of any kind in our squadron and we were higher up on the equipment food chain than the Air National Guard, a state agency.

Something I'd like to see is, one of these experts authenticate some *authentic* Bush TEXANG documents - like tell us what typewriter was used on the other document(s) that contained a superscripted "th." Perhaps this would be a trivial exercise, and if so, more evidence that the CBS stuff is fake.

"The core equipment needed is a $4,400 (base price) IBM Selectric Composer typesetting typewriter. That's more than many luxury cars cost back then and would have hardly been a piece of office equipment sent to tiny Guard and Reserve bases like Ellington Field at the height of the Vietnam war."

Nonsense.

Our office at the Massachusetts Air Guard had at least one IBM Selectric Composer model D back in the late 1960s -- they were ideally suited for military memoranda, reports (particularly weather, flight data and military reporting).

And that phony-baloney "base price" was and still is a marketing ploy; IBM, which was and remains a major military contractor, is well-known for cutting the price on bulk sales, as multiple business articles will attest. You should've seen the deep, deep deep discount I got on seventeen brank new IBM THinkPad T60s for my company three years ago. FWIW, they are all still in use today, with software upgrades.

Thoughtful Critic,

I'm struggling to understand the insight you are bringing to us for consideration. Are you suggesting to us that LtCol Killian took his memos for record that he typed on an ordinary typewriter and repeatedly copied them at Kinkos until he was satisfied that they were indistinguishable from the the quality of type that would be output by a machine of the day intended to produce camera-ready copy?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that these memos for record that allegedly sat, unknown, in the personal files of a man dead some twenty years were somehow copied and recopied until they began to look like modern documents generated by computer and word processing software?

Or perhaps you just believe people are stupid enough to believe that repeated copying of documents typed on ordinary, old fashioned typewriters can be made to look as if they were done on a computer using word processing software if only one shoves enough loose change into a public copying machine?

Isn't it great? The media continues to find swords to fall on for Kerry. And they will continue to do so until they become as irrelevant as Dukakis (read Kerry himself).

The media is damaging themselves in two ways with this story. First, CBS is unable to admit that it "might" be wrong. And the story is progressing too fast for them to keep up. Because they have been unwilling to concede any ground to the "blogosphere" , or for that matter, make an honest attempt at refuting any of the evidence coming out, they are losing credibility with the public.

The second problem in the long run is a worse one. By distorting their "sources", the media is going to lose access to them. Dr. Bouffard (and others who get burned) will become reluctant to speak with the press at all and will eventually respond to all inquiries by directing the media to their personal blogs. A great example of this is Mark Cuban (owner of the Dallas Mavericks) who started BlogMaverick.com out of frustration with the misquotes and misrepresentations he was experiencing after doing interviews. Bottom line, if all the legitimate sources stop participating in the main stream media, all they will be left with is "anonymous" sources like the ones who generated these memos.

Where did these documents come from? Does a 180 exist somewhere releasing this mans files? Could it have been obtained via FOIA (can you go after personal files that way??). Who would have known these documents even existed? Sounds, from all I have read, the he actually had very positive thoughts on Mr Bush as a pilot.

LowKey

I'm in MA. I glanced at the copy of the Globe on a food counter this morning (Sat., 9/11). They are running a major story on Pg. 3 defending the documents, saying that new evidence is putting to rest doubts on their authenticity.

I think its important to remember that the Boston Globe is owned by the NY Times, but is clearly a lot less prestigious. On this matter, they are doing the dirtiest work, and with more enthusiasm, then the NY Times probably feels comfortable doing.

If you look at the Net, all sorts of "wanna-believers" (like the UK Guardian, or the SF Gate) go and yuk it up about these docs, quoting the Boston Globe as their source. It is such disgustingly blatant propaganda--and in many cases it works. It might not here because it not even logically close and there's a big outcry, but often it does.

I think it is time to examine the smoking gun.

Edwards is running with the moemo issue.

It is almost as if it was a coordinated campaign

I can only say that the guy who reformats his documents at Kinkos is absolutely correct. CBS News happened onto this little known phenomenon completely by chance, but if you put a $1 bill through the fax, it will split the '1' into an '11', it also changes the image of Washington to that of Lincoln.

At that point you begin the repeated copying process until the portrait, bit by bit, changes to that of Ben Franklin, the second '1' morphs into a pair of '0's, presto, after about $3.75 in copying charges, you have a $100 bill that even those hard boiled news hounds at CBS would take.

I have been living off of this trick for years.

Nice. The guy's been getting hate mail. I'm sure that will inspire him to make an honest conclusion on the facts.

These memos seem very shady, but what nobody seems to want to talk about is why the White House took the memos from CBS and re-released them with no comment to the press.

Is this the brilliant political team that has been shredding Kerry for months? Are they capable of screwing up that badly? Applying the same test of the possibles to this aspect: how likely is it that they knowingly passed along documents that they thought were false?

What does that indicate about the internals of the White House?

The other issue is that 99.9% of Americans will not even know about this controversy. All that they know is that the scrawl on CNN showed that some new data indicates that Bush blew off his service. So discrediting the memos is not enough. Sooner or later, taking on the data in the memos will be necessary. I hope someone has a plan for that.

Well, since they came from an "unimpeachable" source, that rules out Clinton, but I still need to know: Are they crude forgeries, cooked up by Karl Rove in a decietful prank on the Democrats and CBS news, or are they documents of unquestionable authenticity, proving that Bush is really a girly-man, chimp visaged, shirker? I want to accept the liberal spin, so somebody please tell me which option is true.

One sign that the argument is over, besides the fact that it is based on logic, is that even the Kool-Aide drinkers are giving up defending it. Only the hard-core marxist trained, political operative wannabees seem to be carrying the water on this one any more. Openly stating that, since the swiftees were successful, it is now their turn.

Bill,

You think the folks at the Globe haven't done this exact same thing before? They have.

"Are they capable of screwing up that badly?"

What makes you think it was a screw up? I don't see it that way. And, since the documents are forgeries, they contain no more 'data' than images of faces on the surface of Mars.

Your attempt at a false flag post is quite lame, BTW.

The expression "mainstream media" has really begun to wear on me. Let's begin calling them something that really expresses what we think of them. I nominate "the sh*t media" for the NYT, Globe, LAT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. We'll use the '*' figleaf to protect children's delicate sensibilities. The accepted abbreviations will be TSM and T*M.

I'd have to agree with Ed above, and more importantly, re-issue other arguments that I've seen across the Blogosphere. Where is the standard Dept of the AF letterhead paper, or Unit Standardized letterhead; why is a STRANGE format used?-instead of standard FROM:/SUBJECT:/TO: three line heading REQUIRED of ALL Air Force correspondence; and, why are the NORMAL AF Abbreviations not used by someone who was CAREER AF and would use the CORRECT notations/abbreviations AUTOMATICALLY?????? That's VERY ODD, that a Non-typist would use A non-standard letterhead (and perfectly center this as he TYPED it) on blank typing paper, would make up a format that does not conform to Pen and Quill (the Air Force bible on written documents, should have one around here somewhere) and last but not LEAST-WHERE was it filed for the LAST 30 something YEARS?????? Actual CYA documents would be KEPT at home, and also by a signatory of them-1 would need a Witness 1 trusted for such a document to be a CYA document-Air Force wouldn't recognize it otherwise, it'd be hearsay or inadmissible. Having served in the Air Force from '65 to '87, I'd say some one fumbled while FORGING this, 'cuz they know NOTHING about the Military-or just how much 1 follows standard procedure-uniformity is what it's all about. To believe these docs were actually written by a Lt Col, USAFNG, is REALLY kinda hard to swallow by any one who served aenen 1 full term....Retired AF and a Texan...

Here is one thing to remember, prompted by Ed McIntosh's note. I admire all you younger guys for doing the thorough research and analysis to nail down this fraud. But, if you are of about a certain age (I am 57) and of a certain experience (I started working in Federal offices in 1971) you would have taken one glance at the '1972 memo' and started laughing. Everyone who worked in offices back in those days remembers what typed memos and letters looked like and likely remembers the first time they saw a typeset or word-processed office memo, much later.

The older men and women at CBS, the Globe and other organizations were not naively taken in by the TANG memos. They were and are simply lying through their teeth. They know it, they know their older colleagues know it, and they don't care.

Help Dr. Bouffard out. Do spread the word. For instance, the Boston Globe article was posted among the Must Reads at Lucianne.com, so I posted a comment on the thread there:
_________________________________
Reply 76 - Posted by: ForNow, 9/11/2004 2:23:03 PM

You know I never usually do all boldface.

The Dr. Philip D. Bouffard who is quoted in the Boston Globe says at INDC Journal that the Boston Globe has gotten his remarks wrong &, from the quotes there, he is angry about it.

Quote: “What the Boston Globe did now sort of [expletive] 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!”

Bouffard thinks that it is FAR more likely (though NOT conclusive) that the memos are a FORGERY. Dr. Bouffard is one of the foremost experts in his field.

Maybe I've missed something, but why doesn't someone simply check to see that the paper the document was written on is as old as it should be? And that the ink is also aged sufficiently?

"CBS's defense is to try to prove that there existed at least one machine in that day capable of creating some of the characteristics in these forgeries. But they don't get into the likelihood of Killian ever having access to that, or the complicated operation that one would have to perform to create these characteristics. "

Of course not, the only machine available at that time was a Linotype Imagesetter used by professional typesetters, which cost over $100,000. I doubt National Guard offices had those for typing memos. The operator required extensive training and the output was not on plain paper, but on Kodak paper using a photographic process.

Another point about fonts here: In the 1970s they were called typefaces -- not fonts -- and the Linotype Imagesetters had the Roman typeface family. IBM Selectric type balls had type characters which *simulated* typefaces on imagesetters, but they were smaller and had other characteristics more suitable for typewriters.

Another Thought wrote,"Money quotes:
For TrueType, the font system that is predominant on Windows and Macintosh systems and where you find the Times New Roman font, kerning is built into the font."

TrueType is not a Macintosh system font nor used by ad agency and DTP Mac users, it is used by PC people. Macintosh users use Adobe, Cassidy & Green, and MonoType Type-1 fonts.

About the "footed 4", if the 4 has a "foot" (serif font) then all the other characters will have them. In fact, you can eleminate Macintosh as the source, Macs do not have a key-shortcut for the superscript "th", requiring the typist to type in the "th" and then convert it to superscript.

Hey Knucklehead5..

Buddy, he was just being ironic. Kinda like if you were to say "oh, SURE, I parked the Bronco in the driveway and left blood all over the inside of it, and had blood on my clothes, and there were these bloody gloves, and I was prone to jealous rages, and I had a pair of the shoes that left footprints at the murder scene, and I bought a knife recently, but no, I'm innocent."

I actually laughed when I read it. The post is deliberately subtle, but the key is that no reasonable person would use a typewriter to draft a memo, then photocopy it until it looked like a Word document. Hold the mouse a little less tightly, my friend.

I hate to recap, but it's my linear-thinking nature.

Since New York Times v. Sullivan, the standard for libel against a public figure is "reckless disregard for the truth."

Consider the recklessness exhibited here:

1. CBS does not have original documents.

2. CBS read something over the phone to a "source" who, with something less than authority, agreed what had been read to him was what had been read to him.

3. The typeface is a book font, not a typewriter font.

4. It is presumed Killian would make such a memo when his widow says he didn't make memos.

5. It is presumed the memos he didn't make were typed although Killian's widow says he didn't type.

6. It is presumed the memos were assembled on a tricky newfangled IBM Composer typewriter, the likes of which the National Guard probably never saw, by a man who didn't type.

7. It is further presumed that this tricky piece of newfangled office machinery was employed to write a routine, or at least private, memo to file.

8. The letters are kerned--a feature that even the IBM Composer could not produce.

9. The headers in each of the memos are perfectly centered, a task almost impossible to do with anything short of a later-generation word processor. Even more improbable, each of the three headers perfectly overlays the other.

10. There is no SCCI code, a standard feature of every piece of military correspondence, at the top of each page.

11. The service used 8.5 x 9.5-inch paper, which means there should be visible lines on the photocopy.

12. The comedy of someone typing "CYA," a crude term that would never have been used in military correspondence, in a subject line is overlooked.

13. The appropriate title is "MEMO: TO RECORD" but this was not used, even though the author was putatively a Lieutenant Colonel.

14. The officer's title is not typed according to military style, which does not include a period after "Lt". In addition, there are several instances of words that should be in all caps but are not.

15. The signature block is on the right in at least one of the documents, when it should have always been on the left.

16. On one of the documents it should have said "COMMANDING," but instead says "COMMANDER."

17. The tone of the "sugar coat" memo is wholly inconsistent with Killian's previously laudatory remarks concerning Bush. Killian's widow backs this up.

18. Killian's son says these are not his father's words.

19. Killian's son says these memos were not among his personal papers.

20. It was believed without skepticism that Killian, a man who (a) did not type; (b) did not habitually make memos to the file; and (c) (according to his wife) did not bring work home with him, somehow decided to squirrel away a relatively inconsequential memo concerning a lieutenant's failure to take a physical.

21. Orders were not issued as memos, and were almost never typed by lieutenant colonels.

22. A disregarded order, as implied by one of the documents, would trigger additional paperwork that does not exist in Bush's Form 180-released records. (Orders are signed by the receiving subordinate and returned to the commander.)

23. There is evidently no chain of custody for the "documents."

24. A simple, five-minute attempt to duplicate the documents on Microsoft Word yields an exact replica.

25. The signatures do not match.

26. There are no strike-throughs or insertions on any of the memos; the colonel was a perfect typist despite being out of practice.

27. Reference is made to Col. Staudt, who had retired a year before the memo was written, in regards to applying pressure relative to the obscure Lt. Bush.

28. The missed physical has always been a red herring that only partisans have concerned themselves with.

29. Killian is, conveniently enough, dead.
================

Now, taken together, there is a mountain of support for the idea that the memos are fake. But let's just briefly look at the probabilities of some of the more knowable aspects.

- Killian's widow says Killian didn't type. Maybe he did sometimes. Let's be generous. Probability: 50%.

- Practically all typewriters at the time used typewriter fonts, not Times New Roman. Probability: 10%. (Mark Steyn also says Rupert Murdoch, owner of The Times, had not licensed TNR to Microsoft until the 1980s.)

- Certain effects could only have been produced on the IBM Composer, a typewriter than retailed for approximately $4,000 in 1970. Like the Guard generally during wartime, the TANG was getting hand-me-downs from the other services. Probability: 5%.

- Killian was drunk when he signed two of the three documents from the appearance of his signature. How would I know? Maybe he always typed his memos drunk. Let's just say probability: 60%.

- Killian's son says the documents did not come from his personal papers; some outside source had them. Thus these papers would have to have been secretly kept for 30 years and passed on to another person before Killian's death. Probability: 25%.

- Killian's typing was flawless. Probability: 25%.

- Killian made routine errors in military style. Probability: 25%. (Probably much lower, but maybe because he didn't type the memos he never paid much attention.)

- The same someone who saved the memos wanted to see Bush harmed and passed them to CBS. Probability: 50%

- I will ignore kerning and centering effects in this example, since it renders this exercise moot.

Okay, here's the sequential probability of the documents being real using my SWAG:

(.5 x .1 x .05 x .6 x .25 x .25 x .25 x .5) = .00001%

Feel free to put in your own assumptions, but there is no realistic answer that even rises to the 1% probability level.

Reckless? Absolutely!

It doesn't MATTER what the USAF bought. This was the Alabama Air National Guard. The state of Alabama paid for all AANG equipment!

Jim in Texas, CMSGT, USAF ret.
Plano, Texas

All the memos replicate on Microsoft Word?

I got the CYA easily right, but I couldn’t get the “You are ordered to report” memo to work in Word. It worked better with CG Times than with Times New Roman, & I was varying fontsize etc., just couldn’t quite get the characters to line up accurately.

Scott:

CBS said they had copies, not originals. Therefore, testing the paper/ink is irrelevant. And, CBS will not release the copies for an independent determination of their authenticity. That should tell you something right there.

Ed M
Your remarks are right on. The Army guard units I was familiar with from the late 60's early 70's were training with M1 (WWII vintage)rifles while the regular army had M14s moving into M16's. So the probability that an Air Guard unit would have the latest typewriters/word processors was low likely. BTW - didn't each guard unit have an individual (I think they were state employees) who were assigned to the unit permanently, usaly an enslisted man, who's total responsibility was maintaining the facility and equipment. If the individual at the TANG unit can be found I guarantee he would know what equipment was there, it was his job.

Damn.

For yrs I've been foolin' my relatives with faux (a little French in honor of Sen. K) certificates re my Military service in the '60s. Even made myself a "Lt. Colonel". (I invented the peavey hook net.) Anyone know where I can get a '60s typewriter quick? The DNC? Nah!

TomCom

PS Someone has suggested that we should not educate these guys about their conduct unbecoming, 'cause they'll do better next time. Fuhgedaboudit! I'd guess that these, um, alleged forgerers never even visited a Military facility (except possibly to protest outside the gates) & will never get Military lingo, customs, mores, lore, whatever straight no matter hows hard they try. Also, shhhh! They might take Jim's Kinko put-on as real!

ForNow--

See Charles Johnson's efforts at replication on Little Green Footballs. I don't know if he attempted to replicate all three memos, but the sheer improbability of just duplicating of them in five minutes using a modern font is damning.

How to put all this info in a logical order and get the general public to see it?

Oops, should read "one of them..."

So sorry, wrong, I was working with the darned Composer sample!!! No wonder it wouldn’t line up!

They are Xerox copies (on Powerline) which have thicker characters, including thicker lines in the signatures. Each time they Xeroxed them the type characters got thicker. That doesn't make a document look older, quite the opposit, if it was from 1972 the characters would be thinner and faded.

CBS knows they are Xerox copies, not originals, else they would produce them. It doesn't take an expert to tell the difference between ink from a ribbon and Xerox tonner.

AANG, Jim In Texas??? Did Col Killian also transfer to Alabama with GW (maybe that's why the 1 memo is written-sorry, MSWord processed-2 weeks after Bush left for Ala.! LtC Killian was in the TANG, and yes Texas would have covered some of their costs-Air Force also supplied items-but the odds of the TANG having recent technology would be LOW-contract approval etc.usually lagged technology by 5-10 years, as you should know. That's that FINE control of having civillians handle purchasing and contracting. ForNow, did you print both docs and overlay-according to the People on powerline, that is an almost identical match-definitely more so than overlaying it on typed fonts.....Retired AF and a Texan....

There is also a discrepancy in the paper size, if this was govt issued typing paper. The US used two different sizes - the 8" x 10.5" and the 8.5" x 11". The 8" x 10.5" for the government and the 8.5" x 11" for the rest of us. The Hoover Administration declared that 8.5" x 11" would be the offical commercial size in 1921, but it wasn't until the early 1980's when Reagan finally proclaimed that the 8.5" x 11" was the official standard sized paper and the military changed specs.

Given that the paper in question would have been narrower, one would expect a visable edge when copied onto 8.5" width paper. Our company uses a state-of-the-art copier and it certainly leaves a visable edge when we copy A4 docs onto 8.5" paper.

Just sayin'...

Those with the toughest decisions are the other biased TV news shows. If not for their similiar desire to bring GWB down, they would be all over this story and running expert after expert out to embarrass and destroy CBS and and rather. How do they handle it...do they hunker down WITH CBS and stand by these docs as legit, or do they offer professional journalistic integrity and expose these docs for what they really are...

We are now seeing the limits on the power of bloggers. With the facts on their side, they can't close the deal - for systemic reasons. Rather, the Boston Globe (ohmigod) and the rest are beating you.

analyze that

You should scroll up to Al's post at 1:06 PM today. I'm a tech writer who uses Word professionally, and was quite impressed by Al's test as proof of kerning. He is absolutely spot-on. It's not the ability to see kerning in a mushy, multi-generation copy. It's what kerning would to to the length of a line of type. Word kerns automatically (they call it character spacing)in the normal.dot template and TNR (the normal style default.) Al's test confirms that it's there. The dead-on match between the Word copies of the memo and the memo itself indicates kerning is in the memo. It is a fraud.

Partisan Political asks: Where are the original documents?

To which I'd add: What personal files?

Re:Thoughtful critic. Relax folks, I think he was trying to make a satirical observation about his Kinko's copies.

hey, i'm anti-bush (really-he's an ass), but INDC is completely right on these docs. Boston Globe is totally blocking the truth from coming out. Globe and CBS cannot and will never be able to produce a typed document known to be from 1972-73 that looks like these. They ignore things such as the lines breaks and fact that you can superimpose a word doc created in 5 mins over these memos and get an indentical match.

not to mention that fact that killian, as a typical male in the early 70s, would not be able to type for sh*t. just cuz everybody can type now--that's a huge change from 30 years ago.

Paul, did you try all of the memos? I've found some arrangements of the same letters are pretty similar to the 'original' in length - but I'm _not_ a font expert. What order should the letters be put into if you deliberately wanted the shortest sentence possible? (For a drastic comparison?)

What evidence is there that CBS got the documents from Kerry? If they did, does anybody know who in the Kerry camp gave the documents to CBS, and how did the Kerry camp obtain them? I ask this because there might be some slim chance that criminal forgery laws could be stretched to cover the (alleged) forgeries. Gene Volokh has a couple of legal observations on his blog.

There have been several reports on Fox News that they have asked the Pentagon and the Pentagon believes that the documents are fake.

Maybe the Pentagon is taking an interest here because they have the ability to charge whomever is responsible.

If so, CBS will have to disclose and this thing will go nuclear shortly there after. If a leading Kerry person (like Barnes) is involved, Kerry will lose by 30 and Boxer and Murray will be in a world of trouble for their Senate seats.

It is my understanding that the DNC has had the documents for some time and passed them on to the Kerry Campaign who in turn gave them to 60 Minutes

My problem is with the "speckles".To me these were deliberately placed.I am a trained practitioner in the art of deception.These speckles and other markings on the memo copies appear to be contrived,uncreative,and amateurish.An obvious attempt by a disturbed mind to lend an image of "age" to the "memos".

I have emailed just about every media outlet I can think of -including CBS several times now - regarding Ben Barnes and an apparent timeline problem that I have yet to see addressed by any in the media. According to the Texas Archives and Ben Barnes' own bio, he became Lt. Governor of Texas on Jan. 21 1969. He claims that while he was Lt. Governor, he helped "pull strings" to get Bush in the TANG.

But Bush enlisted on May 27, 1968 - 8 months before Barnes even was Lt. Governor. Why is Barnes' claiming he aided Bush while he he held this office -but 8 months after Bush was already in? Preston Smith was the Texas Lt. Governor in 1968 and Barnes had not even been elected to the office yet.

WHY is NO ONE pointing out this major flaw in Barnes' claim when he was NOT Lt. Governor at the time Bush enlisted? It is the PROOF Barnes is a liar and that he was NOT asked to help get Bush in -because Bush was already in the TANG.

Lt. Governors of Texas http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/ltgov.html

Ben Barnes video claiming he pulled strings for Bush WHILE he was Lt. Governor.
http://media.greaterdemocracy.org/

Bush enlistment date: (using CBS itself for this one but there are many) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/14/politics/main600360.shtml

Interesting that not a single person here condemned the fact that the good Doctor, irrespective of his conclusions, received all kinds of threats and hate mail just for trying to assess the truth. Even if he had changed his mind based on his investigation, would that warrant harassing that poor soul? Has anyone even representing the 'forged' camp apologized for this?

We have enough problems with overseas fanatics. The morons who harassed this man should be damn well ashamed of themselves. Over zealous fanatacism, whether it be on the right or left, is going to destroy this great country.

I had heard of the problem with the Barnes story timeline but thought that I had misunderstood as there had been virtually no follow up. Thanks for bringing it back to the fore. It is very damning.

Independent -

Very good point. It makes me sick that this great old guy was subjected to that bs.

Why are you all assuming that, to be authentic, this document must have been prepared in 1972 and in an office of the Texas Air National Guard? How do you know it was not produced, from Killian's handwritten originals, by him or another custodian, at a later date and elsewhere? No CBS statement about these documents would be contrary to such history.

Are you serious RealAMerican?

Like they would be reformatted in memo style, and then have the dead man's signature mocked up on copies?

That's forgery too, you know.

Why hasn't CBS News identified who gave them the memos (copies) and from where they were supposed to have originally come? CBS News claims to be relying primarily on the "preponderance" of the evidence supporting the memos authenticity rather than the physical evidence of the memos themselves. So what is this iron-clad evidence?

MJGEN Hodges? He now says he thinks the memos are fraudulent (he didn't actually see them before). Killians wife and son? While they were interviewed before the story, their opinions that the the memos were fraudulent were not used. Pres.Bush's roommate from the guard years? He was interviewed but not used because he was "very pro-Bush".

When is CBS News going to say where they got the memos? Was it the DNC as some reports say? Was it the RNC as the Democrats are (desperately it seems to me) postulating? Who! Lets have full disclosure from this prestigious news organization.

If someone had tried to pass forged documents on Senator Kerry, ALL of the MSM would be insisting that heads roll... probably Rumsfelds or Cheneys.. It is indefensible that they are reporting this story so softly.

"How do you know it was not produced, from Killian's handwritten originals, by him or another custodian, at a later date and elsewhere?"

Even if it were true, what would it prove? The handwritten originals might prove something, but your scenario carries no more weight than Kerry's re-enacted home movies from Viet Nam.

I am really disturbed that the blatant scandal of this is being soft petalled by the media. The hatchet job that Rather did on Bush carried a lot of weight with many people I know, but the depth of the corruption that is obvious here to us may never be reported.

I agree the typography of the alleged Guard memos is fishy particularly (a) the proportional font (b) the superscripted "th" and (c) fact that it is easy to duplicate the letter spacing with Microsoft Word using Times New Roman 12 point. Each of these issues deserved further investigation.

Much has also been made about the issue of kerning, stating that it is conclusive. However, it does not appear to me that the memos have any kerning.

First, to set the facts straight: kerning is turned off by default in Microsoft Word. There is a simply way to demonstrate this.

(a) select the font Times New Roman 12 point.

(b) type the line AWAWAWAWAWAWAW.

(c) type the same line again, AWAWAWAWAWAWAW. Now highlight the second line, go to the menu item Format | Font | Character Spacing, check the box next to "kerning for fonts 12 points and above.

Notice the second line just got a lot shorter, and the letters A's and W's became nestled up to each other. This is the effect of kerning. By default it is off in Microsoft Word.

Second, if there were kerning in the memos, it would show up in obvious letter pairs such as Te, Yo, LT and AW in the 4 May 1972 memo. I do not see any kerning in these letter pairs.

Third, people who are claiming kerning on making this claim based on subtle "overhang" between some pairs of letters such as my, ny and fe. This "overhang" is likely caused by something different.

First, the weight of the fonts in the memos has been exaggerated, i.e., had been made heavier than normal. I can envision three possible causes for this:

(a) it was caused by repeated photocopying (i.e., multi-generational photocopies of photocopies), or photocopying on bad equipment;

(b) it was caused by the scanning/digitization process;

(c) it was done deliberately, as part of the forgery, to make the documents look more authentic (aged) or to make them harder to analyze.

Regardless of what caused it, one effect it can have is to make the letters looked kerned. For example, if you take a To pair and exaggerate the weight of each letter, the right edge of the T expands to the right while the left edge of the o expands to the left, making the letters overhang and look kerned even though they were not.

Second, the letters in the memos appear to be shifted up and down, that is, they are not consistently aligned at the baseline. I can envision three possible causes for this:

(a) The memos were in fact typewritten and the up and down shift is due to mechanical variations in the typewriter, for example, the ball of the typewriter not fully rotating or over rotating before it strikes the paper.

(b) The memos were forged and the forger went through the trouble of subtly varying the vertical position of each letter in order to emulate a typewriter. If this is what happened, it raises the additional question of why a forger would go through that trouble but not also use a fixed-spaced font (and avoid the superscripted "th") unless they eventually wanted the forgery to be discovered, and if they wanted the forgery to be discovered, who would have a motive to do this.

(c) The apparent up and down shift is caused by the binarization of the images. If you look at the images, all of the pixels are either completely black or completely white and there are no shades or grey. This means the image has been thresholded. The result of this thresholding is a 0.5 to 1 pixel uncertainty in the exact position of the letter edges and this causes the letters to randomly appear to shift up, down, left and right by up to one pixel, or to randomly appear expanded or contracted by up to one pixel.

Personally, I believe the likely answer is (c), but the only way to know is to examine the original documents or high resolution grey scale scans of the original documents.

Regardless of what caused the letters to shift up and down (binarization or mechanical typing variations), it has a similar effect on the apparent left and right positioning of each letter, which again can make them appear kerned when they are not. For example, in the To pair, if the thresholding causes the right edge of the T to be expanded one pixel to the right while the left edge of the o is expanded one pixel to the left, the letters will appear to overhand and be thresholded even though they are not.

Note that these two or possibly three effects, the increased weight, the thresholding, and possibly mechanical variations in letter positioning are all happening at the same time, which increase the possibility of apparent kerning even though there is none.

In conclusion, while the typography is suspect, those people who think they see kerning in these documents needs to address each of the issues above, the lack of kerning in obvious letters pairs such as AW, the exaggeration of the font weights, the thresholding of the images, and the apparent shift in the position of the letters. So far, no one has addressed these issues. In particular, if anyone is convinced that they can draw such definite conclusions from the images posted on the CBS News web site, how do they account for the up/down shift in the positioning of the letters?

While the typography is certainly fishy, I think it is very difficult to draw conclusions without seeing grey scale images of the documents. Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask CBS News to release higher resolution grey scale scans of these documents?

ok, so if you tested the photocopies that CBS has and they are new (paper and ink circa 2004), then the "source: should have the originals right? And even if the source doesn't have originals (because they were destroyed or some such thing) then the copies that the "source" has should be old...right? Because if they are new ...then the originals have to be around somewhere...am I right?

"not to mention that fact that killian, as a typical male in the early 70s, would not be able to type for sh*t. just cuz everybody can type now--that's a huge change from 30 years ago.
Posted by: milowent at September 11, 2004 03:43 PM"

I am old enough to have graduated from college in the early 70s. I had no proficency as a typist. I am still a two finger typist. The difference is that with a computer, you can easily correct your mistakes.

This morning I saw my friend Kelly who was in the Guard at that time. "Composing typewriter" he said "we didn't even have selectrics, just manuals."

Why are you all assuming that, to be authentic, this document must have been prepared in 1972 and in an office of the Texas Air National Guard? How do you know it was not produced, from Killian's handwritten originals, by him or another custodian, at a later date and elsewhere? No CBS statement about these documents would be contrary to such history.
Posted by: RealAmerican at September 11, 2004 04:35 PM

And that was done before Killian died in 1984 so he could sign it? or are you saying they forged his signature?

Alan:

Take a few deep breaths. now lie down. When you get up have a cold glass of water. Now go to this link. Typewriter stuff doesn't look a bit like computer stuff. not a thing.

This is hilarious. Robert Schwartz's friend remembers what kind of typewriter he was using in the Guard 33 years ago! Exactly! (And apparently, he also knows that this was the same kind of typewriter being used by the 111th in the TANG)!

Come ON. Right now, there are lots of people talking a lot of smack about details, then having to retract, then going on to other details. Too much heat, not nearly enough light.

Hey hey Fox is acutally reporting that Barnes was not the Lt Governor when he supposedly got GWB in the TANG.

TedL, I remember using an 8" disk drive. I'll probably remember that forever. I remember trying to figure out what was on a papertape once... You remember odd things. Particularly _irritating_ odd things. -> Pretty much anyone that ever used a Selectric Composer will remember it.It isn't completely interchangeable with anything else.

Here's a question: Were the expressions "CYA" and "running interference" widely used in the early '70s?

IBM Selectric I and II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter

The Selectric typewriter was first released in 1961 and is generally considered to be a design classic. After the Selectric II was introduced a few years later, the original design was designated the Selectric I. The Correcting Selectric II differed from the Selectric I in many respects:

- The Selectric II was squarer at the corners, whereas the Selectric I was rounder.

- The Selectric II had a Dual Pitch option to allow it to be switched (with a lever at the top left of the "carriage") between 10 and 12 characters per inch, whereas the Selectric I had one fixed "pitch".

- The Selectric II had a lever (at the top left of the "carriage") that allowed characters to be shifted up to a half space to the left (for inserting a word one character longer or shorter in place of a deleted mistake), whereas the Selectric I did not.

- The Selectric II had optional auto-correction (with the extra key at the bottom right of the keyboard), whereas the Selectric I did not. (The white correction tape was at the left of the typeball and its orange take-up spool at the right of the typeball.)

- The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line whereas the Selectric I did not. This feature permitted the insertion of subscripts and superscripts.

Both Selectric I and Selectric II were available in standard, medium, and wide-carriage models and in various colors, including red and blue as well as traditional neutral colors, and both used the same typeballs, which were available in many fonts, including symbols for science and mathematics, OCR faces for scanning by computers, script, Old English, and more than a dozen ordinary alphabets. The typeballs came in two styles: Original models had a metal spring clip with two wire wings that squeezed together, later models had a fragile flip-up black plastic lever that could break off, which was later redesigned to have a substantial plastic lever that did not break. Over the years, there were several different styles for the ribbons, even in the same model Selectric, and they were not interchangeable. Selectric I models used either a cloth cartridge ribbon or a spool film ribbon. Correcting Selectic II models had a cartridge film ribbon instead of the spool style, although the non-correcting models used the earlier cloth cartridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter

In the 1980s IBM introduced a Selectric III and several other Selectric models, some of them word processors or type-setters instead of really typewriters, but by then the rest of the industry had caught up with the trend, and IBM's new models did not dominate the market the way the first Selectric had.

The Selectric III features a 96 character type element vs. the previous 88 character element.

NOPE!! FIXED SPACING - PERIOD!! (10 OR 12 PITCH)!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter

THE IBM COMPOSER

http://ibmcomposer.org/

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.

- TIME OUT -

WHAT??? IT SAY'S THE USER HAD TO TYPE EVERYTHING TWICE!! THAT'S 2 TIMES FOLKS!!
NO MILITARY OFFICER WOULD DO SOMETHING SO TEDIOUS FOR A PERSONAL MEMO!!
LET'S GET REAL!! THIS IS THE ONLY TYPEWRITER THAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED
THE MEMO - HOWEVER THERE ARE MANY OTHER DISCREPANCIES!!

- READ ON -

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.

http://ibmcomposer.org/

In 1975, IBM announced the IBM Electronic Selectric Composer. This Composer had the ability to store about 5000 characters of typing in its memory. It had a main storage area and an alternate storage area, allowing the operator to work on two different documents. When a new document needed to be typeset, the operator would clear out one of the two memory banks in order to enter a new document. The machine had two power switches, one that controlled the memory and one that controlled the typewriter/printer portion. If you turned off the memory switch, or unplugged the machine, say goodbye to your documents.
This machine was a dramatic improvement over the original IBM Composer. The typist no longer was required to type the documents twice, rather they could set the appropriate settings first, type the document, then have the Electronic Composer retype the document justified as specified.

http://ibmcomposer.org/

Re: Thoughtful Critic's Comment: That is total bullshit.

I was regular AF in 1971, and I was using a MANUAL Remington for Drafts of APRs' (Airman Performance Reports) and other official posts_being Military doesn't imply 1 is stupid or Lacking Memory. I retired in '87, but still remember names, dates, even combinations from my assignments-I even remember 'Quill and Pen', as I said before. I couldn't correct except with white out-the ribbons were only Red/Black-no correcting white section like later models I used (late '70s on). But this Guard guy is insulted on his memory of '71-if he was a Clerk/typist, it was 'Seared...Seared...SEARED' into his memory more than likely....Retired AF and a Texan......

Per J Bass' comments: His link to http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/10-2_2000_Personnel_File.pdf
was very interesting. On page 16 of the PDF doc there is a memo dated "5 September 1972." If one takes the time to examine this doc the first thing that jumps out is the seal of the Department of Defence in the upper right hand corner. And next, as J Bass states, is "DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE" above the unit address at the top of the page. I have to wonder if Lt. Colonel Killian had typed these docs - wouldn't he have used to official stationary of his unit?

Much has been made of the times new roman font. On the above reference docs take a close look at the letter little "g" as used on page 16 of the PDF as compared to the letter little "g" as it appears on the SeeBS memo. Anybody but me see a difference?

There are other things on the Sep 5th doc that would compare unfavorably with the SeeBS docs but I am no expert in fonts,kerning, etc. The only thing I can see is that the TANG did not have a typewriter in 1972 that did all the things that appear in the SeeBS memos.

Someone up thread noted that the SF Chronicle ran the Globe story but here it is again and quotes from it to save people the time in going to the actual page.

People might also want to send a note along to the Ombudsman of the San Francisco Chronicle, they lead with this headline: "Further scrutiny lessons doubts on Bush memos. Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used."

This is the second para:

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 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, one in a wave of similar media reports. But Bouffard told the Globe Friday that after further study, he now believed the documents could have been prepared on an IBM Selectric Composer typewriter available at the time.

Now who has the address to the Gates ombudsman?

Why are you all assuming that, to be authentic, this document must have been prepared in 1972 and in an office of the Texas Air National Guard? How do you know it was not produced, from Killian's handwritten originals, by him or another custodian, at a later date and elsewhere? No CBS statement about these documents would be contrary to such history.
- Alan

Then why doesn't CBS News just say who gave them the documents and where the originals were supposed to have come from? Killian's widow and son say it didn't come from them, so where did it come from? The custody of these documents is vital to asserting their authenticity. Context is very important.

Let's have some answers, Dan!

Dearest Soccer Mom:Thoughtful Critic was jesting to make a point.

I just saw it on CBS News.

They repeated the 'Doctor Bouffard, who once doubted the documents, said it could've been produced on a Selectric' line,

and the 'we believe Hodges the first time, not the second.'

Grrrr...

CBS Evening News uses Dr. Bouffard's quote in the Globe and stands by its story. Unreal.

I watched FNC's replay of a portion of Rather's report from last night. Dan sounded a little hoarse; maybe he'd been at football game the night before, or maybe it's from yelling at his CBS collegues for getting him into this situation.

Where is Microsoft on this controversy? They could tell us immediately if the document was written in Word. If it was WordPerfect or AmiPro, I mean, one of their product managers or developers would certainly know, right? I mean, those Microsofties are sooooo smart!!! Come Steve Sinofsky and Steve Ballmer -- speak up! Show us whatchagot!

Yes Phil, he was hoarse,and even more telling,he was halting or hesitant in his presentation.It seemed to me that he "may" have been thinking:"I hope they buy this,but deep down inside I don't think they will".

For what it’s worth, I did end up replicating all four memos in Word, very nicely.

All four line up beautifully in Word 2000 (Windows 98), two of them in the default settings, the other two with minor variations. Works with Times New Roman throughout, though I still wonder whether another font, a very TNR-like one, was used (I wonder because, though the spacing in the “fe” pairing looks & works out just right, still in the originals in giant view the “f” seems less protuberant over the “e” than in Word 2000). The indentations for closing salutation & such stuff didn’t come most naturally & easily, but so what.

In all cases when testing for yourself, make SURE to be aware of a memo’s double spaces, missing spaces, missing period (in an acronym) or comma missing a succeeding space, etc. Watch your own spelling too. Notice that, in one case, an ordinal suffix is not superscripted. Just type the numeral, type a space, then the ordinal suffix & another space, then delete the earlier space. This is not extraordinary or complex. In some cases a space intervenes between numeral & ordinal suffix in the original.

The May 4 1972 Memorandum for 1st Lt. George W. Bush (“You are ordered to report...”)—
Shrink fontsize to 11pt.

The May 19 1972 Memo to File—
Straightforward default settings.

The August 1, 1972 Memorandum for the Record—
Right margin expanded to at least -0.03" & at most –0.14" (on my computer, anyway).
Fontsize 11pt.
(Might also work with other combos of fontsize & margin settings, I didn’t explore.)

The August 18, 1973 Memo to File (“CYA”)—
Straightforward default settings.

Alan, you are right that the MSWord default is for kerning to be "off" and that to quickly reproduce an exact copy, the kerning must indeed be set to "off." However, even with the kerning set to "off" there is still some (lesser) kerning that automatically takes place! This goes beyond mere "proportional" character spacing. Kerning is not only "overhang" or "intrusion" into an adjacent character space, it is context-specific adjustment depending on adjacent characters. Such adjustments (even if there are no overhangs at all) are proven to be present in the memo.
[See Al's "OK, I think.... comment/analysis above]
The memo has variable context-sensitive spacing (kerning) and that is impossible for any existing typewriter--even the type-setting "Selectric Composer."

Furthermore: Perfect Centering with proportional fonts?--Can't be done.

CASE CLOSED.

Hello Observer,

To verify what you wrote, would you be able to point out some specific examples of the kerning in the memos and demonstrate how this also happens in Microsoft Word?

Thanks.

Saw the latest CBS evening news a few minutes ago. Quoted the Boston Globe article, with no mention of the fact that the expert believes these are likely forgeries--just quoted the part about the typewriter.

Re: Slim90's comments above (reproduced below the ***** line:

Nice try, buddy...except, IBM doesn't produce a T60 laptop. The highest model number they've gotten to is the T42. So, how exactly did you get T60's 3 YEARS AGO...or is your memory on that as faulty as on the Composer.

*************************************************
"The core equipment needed is a $4,400 (base price) IBM Selectric Composer typesetting typewriter. That's more than many luxury cars cost back then and would have hardly been a piece of office equipment sent to tiny Guard and Reserve bases like Ellington Field at the height of the Vietnam war."

Nonsense.

Our office at the Massachusetts Air Guard had at least one IBM Selectric Composer model D back in the late 1960s -- they were ideally suited for military memoranda, reports (particularly weather, flight data and military reporting).

And that phony-baloney "base price" was and still is a marketing ploy; IBM, which was and remains a major military contractor, is well-known for cutting the price on bulk sales, as multiple business articles will attest. You should've seen the deep, deep deep discount I got on seventeen brank new IBM THinkPad T60s for my company three years ago. FWIW, they are all still in use today, with software upgrades."

Military units generally follow accountability procedures for tracking 'who' is responsible for 'what' piece of equipment. These procedures include paperwork documenting custody or a period of temporary ownership. In otherwords, an officer or NCO must personally sign for equipment that he or his unit utilizes during duty. If that servicemember departs the unit, then another servicemember signs for the equipment, and so on, and so forth. When a piece of equipment is replaced, this action is also annotated and recorded.

Having said that, there might be another means of verifying which typewriters were in use at Ellington AFB during the period in question. I'm unsure of the USAF jargon, but if one could locate and examine records known in army-speak as "property books" or "hand receipts" during, say, 1971-73 for the units at Ellington AFB, then a more conclusive answer might result.

This documentation typically describes make and model for a particular piece of equipment. The most distinguishing information on these documents would be the typewriter's serial number, which should have definitely been recorded for accountability purposes.

Such accountability records may still exist at either Ellington AFB or possibly Camp Mabry in Austin. If this paperwork could be located and verified, then we might arrive at a more definitive conclusion. Personally, I'd enjoy seeing the reaction (squirming) at CBS if an individual or group simply files an FOIA request for that paperwork and then publicly announces the filing.

Of course if the findings suggest that only IBM Selectrics existed at the unit back then, CBS would likely counter with a canned response along the lines of "LTC Killian typed the documents elsewhere".

Finally, I'm sorry to hear that Dr. Bouffard has received negative e-mail and comments regarding the reported differences in remarks. Such conduct is totally uncalled for.

Al didn’t do it quite right. He omitted the “1” & one of the periods. Except for simply counting the spaces (very very carefully), I did this the slow way, dragging letters down to the new line in alphabetical order. Comes out just right in Word. We’ll see how it looks here.

1. Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I’m having trouble running

1.. a a a a B b b b d d d eeeeegggHhhhIiiillmmnnnnooooooprrrrrSssssssttttuuuuuuuvvy’

I think the word “kerning” has introduced more confusion than it’s worth. As far as I can tell, the “kerning” in Word—in default settings—is simply very precise automatic proportional spacing plus good font design of Times New Roman. A kind of quasi-kerning effect.

I mean that I don’t see any evidence of pairing-sensitive automatic proportional spacing. The “f” hangs a bit over “a”, “c”, “d”, etc., but bumps into “b”, “h”, & “k”. That seems less like pairing sensitivity than like a design compromise. Go into Word & look at the various combinations in very large view. The “j” tucks its tail under any preceding character (or space—in the CYA memo, it’s tucked under the space in “my job”), but the “j” ’s tail touches the tail of an immediately preceding “q”. That seems less like pairing sensitivity than like a design compromise.

Formatting all the text with the Word formatting option “Kerning for Fonts” seems to bring a degree of pairing-sensitivity—such that after a capital “W”, a lower case letter backs up closer to the “W” than does a capital letter. Thoroughgoing pairing-sensitive automatic proportional spacing would require character spacing info for pairings numbering the SQUARE of the number of available characters for a given font. “Kerning for Fonts” is OFF by default & in any case results in bringing the Word document versions out of alignment with the originals.

JohnnyFMN:It makes sense that the State you mention(MA.) may have had IBM Selectric Composer Model D back in the late 1960's.This is Kennedy Land.

I used a Selectric Composer about this time. It was an expensive commercial machine, not something the National Guard or an officer would have, and not something he would use for a CYA memo to his own file.

I am convinced CBS either wanted to believe and didn't check, or just lied. And the NY Times and the Globe figured (a) we like the bottom line, (b) CBS said it so it must be true.

Never has the bias and negligence of the mainstream media been clearer.

Technical note to explain other visible differences between mine & Al’s versions: Al also missed or lost one of the spaces, & substituted a lower-case “l” for an upper-case “I”.

My bad. And apologies to Alan. Al's reasoning was sound [see OK, I think... above] but after testing out his experiment, it failed: character order made little difference with kerning set to "off". If there was a difference, and there might have been, repeated photocopying nullifies any definite conclusions. As I said, Al's reasoning was sound, but the experiment failed because he missed three characters when he retyped them in alphabetical order ("space",".",and "I" (perhaps the number "1" confused him)). There should be 84 characters on that first line. When all 84 characters are rearranged, the line length is pretty close, if not exactly the same.
Of course, the centering issue is sound, but the kerning issue would need to be validated on a near original, not the copied/faxed/scanned reproductions.

As for the foot on the 4.
I have a IBM Selectric "12 Dual Goth 96" that does not have a foot on the "4", in my hand, but it doesn't have a foot on the "M", "N", "R", "F" or "1"(one) either which the 4May-1972 memo has. It also has no serif on the "E", "M" or "R" with the memo has. It doesn't have the "th" either.

$4400 price is legit as *base* retail (price went higher with features). Sorry for no links, but one web site verified $4400 and another mentioned $3000 at discount, which equals $15,000 at today's prices.

USA Today has posted 6 documents (not 4) on this site
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

Where did the 2 additional docs come from?

There was/is no such thing as an IBM selectric composer model D. The selectric composer is the typsetting machine that cost so much. The IBM *Executive* model D is what JohnnyFNM must have had in his office. The Executive D was the best proportional spaced "normal" typewriter (that is, not a type-setter). The Executives (Models A,B,C and D) have been ruled out by Bouffard and others based on font-types.
mini-Superscript and perfect centering were also not available.

I retired from the military, (U.S. Navy), a little over 3 years ago (20 years honorable service). My rating was supply. These are things I can tell you are facts of the military, all services.

Typewriters had what is called an "NSN" (National Stock Number), in addition, typewriters were procured for the services based on a rather large contract based on what is known as a "MIL SPEC" (Military Specifications). In other words, the typewriter had to meet strict set of specific requirements and yet be affordable to military units that have always operated on a limited budget for office supplies. The idea is one model fits all, and because the large contract involves the military purchasing a major quantity, the cost per unit is less than the civilian market.

Could a unit "open purchase", (buy from a civilian source), a different typewriter? NO. Under Federal Law and DOD regulations if an item had an NSN, this is the only item you could purchase.

The typewriter selected was the "IBM Selectric". I spent hundreds of hours typing on the "Selectric" before the PC came into existence. I was so dependent on the "Selectric" that I even learned how to fix it if it ever gave me problems. If I sent it to "typewriter repair" I would never see it again as they were a hot commodity and there were never enough to go around.

One requirement was "fixed" spacing (10 and 12 pitch fixed spacing). Why? I will discuss a few of the many reasons here:

- Military message traffic, including top secret messages were sent between units, the various services, DOD and even the White House via satellite. One of the first close to "real time" message systems invented for Government use. How was this accomplished? The "Selectric" used what was known as an interchangeable "golf ball" typeface element. In other words, each ball consisted of a different font. EVERY selectric came with an "OCR" (optical character reader) font ball. Military messages were typed on a standard form with "red" margin lines. (The reader/scanner would not read the lines). Messages were scanned and converted for transmission. (encryption was common - especially for classified messages). In order to type the messages, a typewriter had to have "fixed" spacing.

- SUPPLY. (My expertise in the Navy). The most common form used, (and I have filled out thousands of them), is the DD-1348 6pt. DD stands for "Department of Defense" and the "6pt" means 6 part. (it had carbon paper between the copies). It was based on the old IBM punch card. Same size, same looks and had 80 blocks of data to fill out (80 card columns). This format was known as MILSTRIP. The 80 card columns could be sent via military message in MILSTRIP in order to get supply requisitions into the supply system quickly. In order to type these 1348's, a typewriter had to have a "fixed" spacing.

Were their exceptions on the NSN only procurement rules? Yes, but only under limited circumstances. A major paper had to be written as to why a unit could not use the NSN item. It was called justification and the majority of the time when it was attempted, it was shot down.

Reserve units have even lower budgets to work with than active duty units. There is no way that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian's unit could have procured an "IBM Composer". First, no unit could ever justify the "need" for such a typewriter and secondly, the price alone was prohibitive. (Approximately 30 to 40 thousand dollars today, adjusted for inflation).

But, for the sake of argument, let's say Lt. Col. Jerry Killian had a "composer". If you refer to the instructions to operate the "composer", you had to type one line at a time "twice". Yes folks, I said TWICE. Does anyone really believe that Lt. Col. Jerry Killian would have typed each line "TWICE" on a personal memo? Come on, Get real. I'd rather write a handwritten note to myself then go through this process. Would you double type your comments here, one line at a time?

There is no doubt, especially in this military "savvy" minded individual - there is NO WAY these memo's were produced on a military typewriter. THEY ARE FORGERIES. No question about that.

It's time for Rather to either resign or be fired. After the Super Bowl, one would think CBS and VIACOM have learned their lesson. Obviously not.

Actually, I should have said that Al’s idea for a test for kerning was a really good idea & that, the moment I saw it, I felt a pang over not having thought of it myself. Good thinking, Al.

I read elsewhere that one had to type twice on the Composer only for typographically justified text. For “rag right,” one-time typing is supposed to work fine.

But the rest of gP’s post is another nail in the coffin of Dan Rather’s whole operation.

Don’t those journos & reporters worry about their reputations being poisoned by Rather’s mad stand on flimsy evidence in a wrong-headed crusade against the President? Sanity will be signaled by cracks in the CBS News fortress to come.

Here is an interested tidbit I found on Say Anything blog site

The Boston Globe has a story out today blasting, once again, Bush's military service. That's all well and and good in that its the same tired claims made over and over again, but notice this heading at the top of the article.

This article was reported by the Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.
The article was written by Walter V. Robinson. The same Walter V. Robinson who was found guilty of libel in 1987 for lying about the background of a Republican nominee for President in 1982, one John R. Lakian.

In "John R. Lakian v. Globe Newspaper Company & Walter V. Robinson", "the jury found that the defendants had published false, defamatory statements with knowledge of their falsity or while having serious doubts about their truth..."

This same Johnson was the originator of the "missing year" National Guard story about the President back in 2000.

It would seem as though this man has some serious credibility issues.

This whole thing is fascinating.

How it happened.

First, there's no 60 Minutes story without the Swift Boat attacks.

Second, the 60 Minutes story by itself isn't big news. Minimal coverage,
really, by the non-CBS media.

But then the Blogsphere creates a story which previously did NOT exist. The
story is NOT whether or not Bush got favoritism or went AWOL or anything. The
big story is that CBS's famed "60 Minutes" is accusing the President of the USA
with being a wartime deserter on the basis of FAKE documents!

It's now a HUGE story. Covered by mainstream media the world over. Just do a
Google "News" search on "BUSH CBS GUARD" and sort by date. I mean all the
national mainstream news and all the world news. Not covering the President's
guard duty, but covering 60 Minutes being duped by forgeries.

And 60 Minutes is licking its chops all the while. Now their borderline
"story" becomes not just a real story, but a huge story.

Dan Rather is being accused of libeling the President of the USA with forged
documents. So he comes on the air, fiercely indignant. Leads off with a
bullet point by bullet point, straight on frontal attack of the President,
which he could NEVER have gotten away with before...he can get away with it
now, because he's got to list the charges that 60 Minutes is now getting
attacked over. And the man is clearly livid. He is indignant, as if HE (Dan
Rather) is the one who is being forced to defend his honor. But, even as he's
defending his honor, he's going straight for the juggular of the President of
the USA (must be a lot of pent up anger leftover from Nixon).

I mean, Rather is in heaven. He can just let it all hang out. He's not some
mean spirited, petty partisan lib/Dem member of the elitist, left wing press;
he's an honored journalist, who is being accused of the most egregious libel in
the history of modern Presidential politics. He must defend himself from these
spurious charges, so he lets the Right Wing have it from both barrels (if you
didn't see it, you really missed something. He doesn't mince his words).

And the Right Wing still doesn't see how they've been had. They created this
mess. They were too clever by half.

Oh, looky. This document was forged using MS Word on a modern computer.

How clever. How brilliant. They never stopped to consider how the person
pulling off the hoax could be so smart to get 60 Minutes to run the story and
still be so dumb as to not use an old fashioned typewriter. Or how 60 Minutes,
with a 35 year history of doing the greatest investigative journalism in the
history of television, could be so dumb as not to notice that the documents
were created with proportional fonts and superscripts.

As I wrote yesterday, I didn't understand what was going on, but none of it
made sense.

It didn't make sense then, but it makes perfect sense now.

Absolutely brilliant.

And they are still not through. The Right Wing's initial reaction is to dig
for still more flaws. It is like they have this suicide urge. Rachet up the
pressure again. Force CBS to drop the final shoe...the final nail in the
coffin.

We'll surely find out. For the record, CBS has gone way, way, way, way out on a limb. They are accusing the President of the United States with desertion in wartime. My own personal opinion is that they wouldn't do this without a fairly major ace in the hole. If it turns out they have such an ace, then this will turn out to be perhaps the greatest all time political manipulation ever carried out by an United States independent news organization. As I said before, the Bush guard stuff is 32 year old news and about as irrelevant to anything as anything that I can think of (save for the question of whether or not Kerry deserved to get his purple hearts 35 years after the fact). But CBS has turned this into one of the biggest and most followed stories of the entire Presidential campaign. If they are wrong, I think it dooms Kerry's election bid. If they turn out to be right, then I think that Kerry will win. It's that big.

There's an old adage in trial law. Never ask a witness a question when you don't know the answer yourself. The corrolary is never to make a big accusation that the witness may be able to refute with proof.

CBS knows what cards it is holding. No one else knows what cards they are holding.

Advantage: CBS

- Larry

I would love to know if Dr. Bouffard has found any Selectric fonts that use serifs, but don't have the foot on the 4.
It seems that most (maybe all) Selectric fonts that use a serif have a foot on the 4. The font used for the document seem to break this trend.

C. Freeman, you actually heard Fox report that Barnes was not Lt. Governor at the time Bush enlisted? THANK GOD! I have been screaming about this for over a week to every news outlet I could and NO ONE has picked up on this.

Barnes was not Lt. Governor on May 27, 1968 when Bush enlisted in the TANG -even though Barnes has been claiming he used his office of Lt. Governor to help Bush. Barnes did not take the office until Jan. 1969. Preston Smith was Lt. Governor during all of 1968 until Jan. 21, 1969 when he became Governor.

Kathleen

I did indeed hear it being discussed in an interview on FOX. I'm sorry I wasnt paying attention to who was being interviewed as I was doing my own internet research, but the reporter was obviously paying close attention the the bloggers.

gP Sounds like he has really been there done that.Excellent post!
It is almost comical,when one thinks of Lt.Col Killian( God rest his soul),who supposedly could not type, sitting in front of this fancy pedestal typing machine,trying to make sure he get's it right.
I am sure this man (as his widow said )would have simply filed his thoughts mentally and went about his business.The truth will prevail.

There are image files of Bush's documents from the Air National Guard unit posted to the web. They are easy to find. Look at the filled in portions of the documents. They are done on a monospaced typewriter in probably Courier. The unit did not have a Selectric Compositor and I doubt the Colonel had one at home. The CBS "memos" are beyond forgeries, they are total fabrications; CBS knows that, the Boston Globe knows that.

There has been something nagging at me all day and wonder if anyone here can help... While I did use IBM Selectrics during the early & mid 70's, sometime during the 80's I began using a Xerox Memory Writer which was fully capable of at least the proportional type and superscript because all could be written to memory with font changes and page movements coded in and then the whole document simply printed with the stroke of key. This even allowed for centering. I just do not know if this machine would have been available as early as 72 or 73.

Regarding this particular angle (posted here by someone else):

>>The core equipment needed is a $4,400 (base price) IBM Selectric Composer typesetting typewriter. That's more than many luxury cars cost back then and would have hardly been a piece of office equipment sent to tiny Guard and Reserve bases like Ellington Field at the height of the Vietnam war. This is the equipment the Boston Globe said "could have" been used to create the Bush memos. Boggles the mind.

>>After four years of active Naval Air duty, including two full tours in-country in Vietnam, I spent two years at the Reserve unit at Ellington. There were certainly no IBM Selectric typewriters of any kind in our squadron and we were higher up on the equipment food chain than the Air National Guard, a state agency.

Response:

I worked for the US government for ten years. It is the same for virtually all departments. You have a yearly budget. At the end of the fiscal year, anything you don't spend, you lose. Worse, your budget gets cut back the next year, because they figure out that you really don't need it.

So, as the end of the fiscal year approaches, there is (or certainly was in the 1970s and 80s, when I had my government career) a spending spree which goes one to see that every last penny is gone. This is often an occasion to aquire large, expensive pieces of equipment that you don't really need. I'm talking very big money, in some instances. Not merely thousands of dollars, but sometimes hundreds of thousands, depending on the department/agency and on the circumstances.

The idea that you will only find primitive equiment in government offices and agencies is fanciful. No one is capable of overspending and wasting money like the government.

I have no first hand knowledge of how purchasing and procurement decisions were made in the Texas Air Guard, but I don't think it can be assumed that they were responsibly frugal with taxpayers' money.

From what I can find, IBM introduced the Executive Model D in 1967 which did do, to a degree, porportional spacing. On the Selectrics you could change the font ball and have different fonts, but they were all monospaced. Found this yesterday might be able to locate it again if needed.

Hey Larry,I really feel sorry fot you.Your postings are so lame and uninformative.You really do sound like a Girlie Man liberal.Why not try to approach things with some objectivity.Here, I will give you an example:I am voting for President Bush,however, I am at odds with him over several issues.
You may or may not be voting fo Kerry,(although I have a hunch where you stand).Why can't the Libs be real men and women,and not feel that they have to support their guy no matter what.You and your ilk would be more credible,and make a giant leap toward a society that intellegently debates the real issues.

Well here I sit in my PJs learning more than I would ever get from the "respected" media. Thank you all for validating my skepticism.

All else said - Has anyone seen the picture of the LtCol that supposedly wrote the memo? Font's, IBMs, formats, etc. - The guy in the picture I saw is not the kind of guy who types. Not the kind of guy who yields to pressure or sugarcoats anything. he may have kept a "little black book" as officers might do, but a senior officer at that time type out anything - low probability. Hand it to a clerk.
As to the story on Bush and the guard service - who cares! 30+ years ago the services were riffing (downsizing), people were told NOT to show up, early outs were common and expected. He missed meetings - so what? He did fly a jet for two years straight that was deadly if I recall, mainly to the pilot. 30+years ago and its now an issue?
St Paul would never have had a chance in this day and age.
I'm a VN Vet and officer tired of the NG smog

Nathan:Thank-you for your service for our Country.God Bless you and yours.I shall now retire to bed with a feeling of thankfullness.

1. I have not seen anywhere that the CBS expert examined the 'original' documents. It is trivial to differentiate between a typewritten document, and a document printed out on a laser or inkjet printer (the indentations created by a typewriter do not exist on a laser or inkjet). "...AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES."

2. Again, the CBS expert does not sa