Bush documents faked? - Page 2

Undertoad · 09-10-2004, 02:11 AM

Page 1 of the Washington Post: Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush

It turns out Little Green Footballs was the one to point out the MS Word similarity. (Fox News picked that up, which is where I saw it.) LGF points out that the superscript th differences on screen disappear when you print the document. LGF overlays a modern MS Word doc over the memo and it matches exactly, even the vertical spacing and curly-q single-quote marks.

I'm convinced. These documents were not written in 1972.

jdbutler · 09-10-2004, 07:34 AM

I heard on this mornings news that FOX is having some sort of experts examine the fonts, so it's wait and see for me.

Happy Monkey · 09-10-2004, 07:34 AM

IBM Selectric Composer, with proportional fonts and replaceable balls. I don't know if they happened to make a ball with "th" between 1966 and 1972, but it seems likely.

russotto · 09-10-2004, 10:47 AM

Proportional fonts and 'th' superscripts were certainly available, but exact equivalence to the modern MS Word "Times New Roman" font would seem to be a smoking gun. The venerable Selectric certainly never had that, and the modern "Times New Roman" font is a TrueType reconstruction designed for computers.

09-10-2004, 11:58 AM

The one thing I don't understand, is why not pull some more records that would have come out of that same Lt. Colonels office around the same time as the Bush documents and compare them all? Maybe there's privacy laws or something, but couldn't people's names and serial numbers just be blacked out and compare the rest of the documents? Also, there must be lots of guys still running around today who would have copies of their old paperwork that came out of that office, just like I have copies of my Dad's old documents. Why don't any of them go back and check their documents for the things they're talking about on the Bush papers and come forward with them either way?

lookout123 · 09-10-2004, 12:15 PM

Jerry Killian's widow and son don't believe they are real, saying that Killian was actually a supporter for Lt Bush. But that is just speculation and 30 year old memories. The ABC team does have some good points about the technical analysis of the memo.

Today's story

vsp · 09-10-2004, 12:27 PM

If you're going to link to LGF, I might as well link to a lefty blog's take as well:

<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603">TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong</a>

Not posting this as gospel, merely for comparison purposes.

glatt · 09-10-2004, 02:44 PM

The funniest thing I've read regarding the authenticity. This may or may not be true. I know nothing about the military's inner workings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by From Another Web Page

Almost forgot. They keep calling him Bush not LT Bush just Bush. Here's a clue. Senior officers love to remind LT's that they are in fact LT's. Junior officers and enlisted would never forget to put a LT's rank on any correspondance for fear of the A$$ Chewing it would cause.

lookout123 · 09-10-2004, 02:50 PM

on every piece of paperwork i've been involved with it is name and rank, so that does stand out a bit; but it could have just been an officer with poor customs and courtesy discipline.

Happy Monkey · 09-10-2004, 02:58 PM

Except for the order to Bush to get a physical (which does use the rank), these are mostly "notes to self", not official memos.

Undertoad · 09-10-2004, 03:54 PM

VSP, that's why I found it so interesting. It turns out that Charles @ LGF has a solid background in typography, and was the first one to point out the MS Word comparison. This is why both sides are required to understand an issue. The original complaints came from a righty blog and the righty Weekly Standard before they got to the WaPo. So I read Atrios and Josh Marshall and Kos and all their comments sections to get an idea of the other side before coming to a... well, a very educated guess on it.

Undertoad · 09-10-2004, 03:56 PM

HM, his widow said he never kept notes. The only half-decent actual explanation I can think of is that these were re-typed notes after the fact for archival purposes. But if they are notes and not serious memos, that explanation would not fly.

vsp · 09-10-2004, 04:10 PM

I can respect that. I'm not willing to pass judgement on the memos yet myself, but I'm too used to arguing with people who consider one side of the political spectrum to be Ultimate Truth and the other to be Vicious Slanderous Lies.

russotto · 09-10-2004, 04:36 PM

The lefty blog screwed up. According to their own source, Monotype revamped Times New Roman metrics in the 1980s to better match Linotype Times Roman. So if IBM indeed used the Monotype Times Roman in a 1970s era typewriter (as they assert), it would NOT match the Microsoft Word font, which is based on the "New" Times New Roman.

The 4 is closed-top in Word and in the memo; I have no idea what they are talking about there.

Happy Monkey · 09-10-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

HM, his widow said he never kept notes.

If he kept them at work, I'm not sure why she would be aware of them.

09-10-2004, 07:34 AM	#17
jdbutler If ya cant take a joke, Effya! Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 288	I heard on this mornings news that FOX is having some sort of experts examine the fonts, so it's wait and see for me. __________________ Phineas J. Twunt

09-10-2004, 07:34 AM	#18
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	IBM Selectric Composer, with proportional fonts and replaceable balls. I don't know if they happened to make a ball with "th" between 1966 and 1972, but it seems likely. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

09-10-2004, 12:15 PM	#21
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	Jerry Killian's widow and son don't believe they are real, saying that Killian was actually a supporter for Lt Bush. But that is just speculation and 30 year old memories. The ABC team does have some good points about the technical analysis of the memo. Today's story __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

09-10-2004, 02:50 PM	#24
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	on every piece of paperwork i've been involved with it is name and rank, so that does stand out a bit; but it could have just been an officer with poor customs and courtesy discipline. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

09-10-2004, 02:58 PM	#25
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Except for the order to Bush to get a physical (which does use the rank), these are mostly "notes to self", not official memos. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

09-10-2004, 02:11 AM	#16
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Page 1 of the Washington Post: Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush It turns out Little Green Footballs was the one to point out the MS Word similarity. (Fox News picked that up, which is where I saw it.) LGF points out that the superscript th differences on screen disappear when you print the document. LGF overlays a modern MS Word doc over the memo and it matches exactly, even the vertical spacing and curly-q single-quote marks. I'm convinced. These documents were not written in 1972.

09-10-2004, 10:47 AM	#19
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Proportional fonts and 'th' superscripts were certainly available, but exact equivalence to the modern MS Word "Times New Roman" font would seem to be a smoking gun. The venerable Selectric certainly never had that, and the modern "Times New Roman" font is a TrueType reconstruction designed for computers.

09-10-2004, 11:58 AM	#20
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	The one thing I don't understand, is why not pull some more records that would have come out of that same Lt. Colonels office around the same time as the Bush documents and compare them all? Maybe there's privacy laws or something, but couldn't people's names and serial numbers just be blacked out and compare the rest of the documents? Also, there must be lots of guys still running around today who would have copies of their old paperwork that came out of that office, just like I have copies of my Dad's old documents. Why don't any of them go back and check their documents for the things they're talking about on the Bush papers and come forward with them either way?

09-10-2004, 12:27 PM	#22
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	If you're going to link to LGF, I might as well link to a lefty blog's take as well: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603">TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong</a> Not posting this as gospel, merely for comparison purposes.

09-10-2004, 03:54 PM	#26
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	VSP, that's why I found it so interesting. It turns out that Charles @ LGF has a solid background in typography, and was the first one to point out the MS Word comparison. This is why both sides are required to understand an issue. The original complaints came from a righty blog and the righty Weekly Standard before they got to the WaPo. So I read Atrios and Josh Marshall and Kos and all their comments sections to get an idea of the other side before coming to a... well, a very educated guess on it.

09-10-2004, 03:56 PM	#27
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	HM, his widow said he never kept notes. The only half-decent actual explanation I can think of is that these were re-typed notes after the fact for archival purposes. But if they are notes and not serious memos, that explanation would not fly.

09-10-2004, 04:10 PM	#28
vsp Syndrome of a Down Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: West Chester Posts: 1,367	I can respect that. I'm not willing to pass judgement on the memos yet myself, but I'm too used to arguing with people who consider one side of the political spectrum to be Ultimate Truth and the other to be Vicious Slanderous Lies.

09-10-2004, 04:36 PM	#29
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Nope, still phonies The lefty blog screwed up. According to their own source, Monotype revamped Times New Roman metrics in the 1980s to better match Linotype Times Roman. So if IBM indeed used the Monotype Times Roman in a 1970s era typewriter (as they assert), it would NOT match the Microsoft Word font, which is based on the "New" Times New Roman. The 4 is closed-top in Word and in the memo; I have no idea what they are talking about there.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)