CBS doc's are probably accurate

Did you repro the MS Word "proof" yourself or take it from some web site? Is is true that using defaults you can get the exact same memo. And what about the handwriting - was that done by MS Word also?
No one has the real originals - only photocopies. It would be stupid to keep the true originals around if forgery was the game.

But did I do this myself or get it from the web? I got the GIF from the web (MSNBC).

I recreated the bit of text that is in the GIF myself in Word using the default font and other settings. It looks surprising similar...should I say identical?

Here's the jpg from my machine of Word and the word doc itself. Grab 'em if you like.
http://odd.phootoons.com/worddoc.jpg
http://odd.phootoons.com/worddoc.doc

I don’t really support either candidate, so I suppose I don’t have anything to “fuel” my beliefs. Looking at this from a completely unbiased point of view, it just seems like neither of you really know if the documents are forgeries or not.

And in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter anyway!

Phoo - just because you are able to “re-create” a similar document with MS Word does NOT prove conclusively that the doc’s are forgeries. It only suggests that they could be.

To prove that there are indeed forgeries using the MS Word method, you would need to create doc’s using all type-writers of that period. If you could then used MS Word to “match” a doc on one of those type-writers, you would only then dis-proof your hypothesis. And even then you couldn’t conclusively say they were forgeries or not using this method of proof. Bottom line - you can’t use this method by itself - it ain’t scientific. I spoke to my scientist wife about this tonight (btw - she just got a job teaching science at my son’s elementary/middle school), and she agreed with me on this one.

Jason - you’re right it isn’t going to matter because the American people don’t really care if Bush was lying or not. And all Rowe et al. had to do was to discredit the doc.'s in the public’s mind.

Having said that, there’s no conclusive proof to not believe the doc’s. Just read the expert’s opinion & Rather’s show explaining CBS’s position on them.

I believe that the doc’s are probably true because I think there’s other colloborating evidence & I believe Bush probably did skip out on his duty during this period.

Sorry, but it isn’t just the type, which is all finding a typewriter would prove. The type COULD match, after all the type Word uses is the same type many typewriters us.

The fact that the automatic word wrap in Word aligns PERFECTLY with the hand typed doc makes it just flat out unbelievable. What are the chances that someone could type out a page in 1973, manually make returns, and have every return and every letter and line spacing line up EXACTLY the same way a computer would do it automatically 30 years later?

You are one gullible SOB, or incredibly stupid, or both. No wonder much of what you say doesn’t make sense to normal folks.

You are one gullible SOB, or incredibly stupid, or both. No wonder much of what you say doesn't make sense to normal folks.
One last time - it does NOT absolutely prove it following standard scientific method (which is the point I'm trying to make). Now I didn't start calling you names, but I'll suggest it's you that is the gullable one for disregarding this & all the other points made.

Please re-read the quotes I provided, particularly the part about the "th", because that the expert also said that would be very hard to do with Word. Also, use of "l" for "1" would not be done.

BTW - wasn't Word designed to follow standard type pt sizes & act like a typewriter? Is it really so unrealistic that Word might match some typewriter? Have you really answered this question? You've made some assumptions about probability but what facts are the assumptions based on - your common sense? My common sense tells me that the earth is also flat.

Also I asked this before - what about the handwriting? Did Word do that also?
What are the chances that someone could type out a page in 1973, manually make returns, and have every return and every letter and line spacing line up EXACTLY the same way a computer would do it automatically 30 years later?

You have a valid point here (I showed this to my wife) but your example does not have good examples of where a person in '73 might use a hyphen otherwise. Data supporting your hypothesis would have to include words where a typist in '73 would break them differently than Word might. Your example is not conclusive in this matter.

However, we should look at some of the other memo's to see if there are places where a typist might act differently than Word does today.

Originals…(I assume - grabbed from MSN)
http://odd.phootoons.com/bushguarddocs.pdf

Screen Shots and Word Docs…(done by me on the laptop)
http://odd.phootoons.com/memo.jpg
http://odd.phootoons.com/memo.doc
http://odd.phootoons.com/suspension.jpg
http://odd.phootoons.com/suspension.doc
http://odd.phootoons.com/physical.jpg
http://odd.phootoons.com/physical.doc

The Word out of the box defaults didn’t work perfectly on two of them. The two “signed” docs were done with font point size 11 instead of the default 12 point. Also, one of these needed the right margin of one paragraph moved to the next default click over. That was about 1/8" over to the right.

Since these were the ONLY changes needed to make things line up the way they do I suspect that two docs were done on one computer and the other two were done on a different computer - one that has had the defaults slightly changed.

Or they were done on two different typewriters - one 12 point and one 11 point by someone with an uncanny knowledge about future automatic wordwrap.

What might the chances be that four docs were created 30 years ago that all four automatically word wrap like word does today where one lines up with the 11 point font and the other lines up with the 12 point font.

Would it help if I get someone to sign them and I photocopy them a few times? They might even pass for the originals if that was done.

Look, I’m not try to discount what they say. I’m trying to show you that these aren’t worth sticking your neck out for the way you are. There are plenty other reasons to believe that the text in these documents is probably true, or near enough to debate about it, but these documents aren’t worth the printer paper they were printed on.

Now you’ve got a REAL connundrum, Mike… ABC apparently disagrees with your scholarly and objective assessment of the authenticity of the CBS documents:

http://abcnews.go.com/section…-1.html

How to resolve this? Oh my my.

I want you to remember this offer, Mike. If this “anything else” forum ever goes by the wayside, I have an Ikonboard set up and functional, and I will give you your OWN forum there and make you the sole moderator. This is not a joke - it is yours for the asking.

For those who don’t care to follow the link, here’s a couple tidbits:

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

“I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter,” she said.

(…)

But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush’s National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.

“I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply,” Will told ABC News.

Oh… look. Another. Note particularly the last paragraph, before you start with the “true believers” bs.

These are just samplings. If you open your eyes for a few minutes, you’ll see the major media in a feeding frenzy on this one - all doing their own investigations, and all coming up with the same things. There is a consistancy here, and it isn’t being turned up by Fox or Rush.

The beauty here is that we finally have something that is SO blatent that the machine has had to turn on one of its own. Man… it is sweet to behold. And please, Mike - continue with the personal slams against those of us “true believers” who are SO uncooperative. Do it… in the name of ALL good Democrats. Do it loud and do it long. Do it in the name of inclusiveness, tolerance and intelligence.

Make sure everybody who doesn’t toe this line knows exactly what they are in the eyes of the Loyal Democrats that you speak so eloquently on behalf of. You’re a winner, dude.


By PETE SLOVER / The Dallas Morning News

HOUSTON The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard colonel
who supposedly authored memos critical of President Bush’s Guard service
said Tuesday that the documents are fake, but that they reflect real
documents that once existed.

Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1956 to 1979 at Ellington Air Force
Base in Houston, said she prided herself on meticulous typing, and the
memos first disclosed by CBS News last week were not her work.

“These are not real,” she told The Dallas Morning News after examining
copies of the disputed memos for the first time. "They’re not what I
typed, and I would have typed them for him."

Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people
and events, said she is not a supporter of Mr. Bush, who she deemed
“unfit for office” and “selected, not elected.”

Quote (CosmicCharlie @ Sep. 15 2004,00:03)
One last time - it does NOT absolutely prove it following standard scientific method


What Liberal Media ?
Never heard of it ...





Is this really all the Libs have ... ? :laugh:

Maybe the real docs are down Sandy Burglars underpants.
But then I guess it all depends on what the meaning of forgery is ...

I'm starting to believe they want kerry to lose, to open
'08 up for Evita.


--
I'm starting to believe they want kerry to lose, to open
'08 up for Evita.


I have heard this aluded to many times recently, and from within the Democratic party. There are many who are puzzled and angry with what has gone on, and who are starting to question why this campaign has been run in the way it has been. It is also interesting to note that just a week or so ago, Kerry brought in a whole bunch of Clinton loyalists to fix his floundering campaign.

Whatever it is, I'm enjoying it. Immensely. I have no real hopes of true reform resulting from any of it, but reality is staring people in the face today in a way that requires EXTREME blind faith to ignore. The "true believers," indeed. I'm so glad we have at least one of them here among us to observe as this goes down!

**edit**
By the way, Phoo - I have an IBM Selectric from that era with a Courier ball and a couple others. The Courier was the serif font that was most commonly used at that time. Don't know if it still works tho - we haven't really used it since our first IBM PC with Word Perfect.

It is a terribly moot point though.
Quote (MidnightToker @ Sep. 14 2004,17:38)
And it's beyond my belief that a person hit by lightning could survive

I have good friend been hit by lightning...TWICE. One of 'em a direct hit. He's still breathing. Heck of a drummer too!

Dang, had to go and throw a musical reference in...........oh well, you guys can have your topic back.

TG
  1. Bush has not said anything about the missing time in service.
    2. he has a history of spreading lies to win campaigns. (McCain’s “black baby,” e.g., the claim that he was crazy from being a POW, or the recent "ooohs’ and “boos” hoax)
    3. He has very close ties to the swift boat lies, which follow his usual campaign strategy.
    4. The most reasonable conclusion, given the forensic evidences so far, is that the same thing is going on with these documents - they are real and Bush’s team is floating lies to discredit them. So what if the lies are found out - it did not stop McCain from supporting Bush.
    5. But it would be better to wait until the evidence has been sifted more thoroughly to make any final judgments.

    These people, on both sides, are playing with the public. :)
These people, on both sides, are playing with the public

#### it, Tom... this is the voice of Reason. That's not going to help the Right's cause at all. Be quiet and let Mike continue, please!
I want you to remember this offer, Mike. If this "anything else" forum ever goes by the wayside, I have an Ikonboard set up and functional, and I will give you your OWN forum there and make you the sole moderator. This is not a joke - it is yours for the asking.

Pete - thanks & I do appreciate that. Considering all that I've said about "true believers" that's pretty nice of you to offer me this. What would we call this forum - Toker's tokes, Charlie's Cosmics?!?! Plus, I don't know what I'd really do if I was moderator :laugh:

I'll read the ABC news report.

I'm enjoying the Kerry campaign but in a rather sadistic way. I think Kerry is totally blowing it - don't get wrong about that.

Phoo - excellent work! So you’ve shown that it’s still a real possibility that Word may have created these documents, but is it conclusive proof?

What about the “th” mentioned earlier? Have we disproven the claim that this would be hard to do in Word?

Pete - so who forged these docs? Mostly like someone in the Democratic Party organization? It wouldn’t be smart for CBS to have done this.

Here’s what the ABS article said also:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
“CBS News did not rely on either Emily Will or Linda James for a final assessment of the documents regarding George Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. Ms. Will and Ms. James were among a group of experts we consulted to assess one of the four documents used in the report and they did not render definitive judgment on that document. Ultimately, they played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert who examined all four of the documents used,” the network said in a statement.

“Most importantly, the content of the documents was backed up by our reporting and our sources who knew the thoughts and behavior of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian at the time,” the statement said.


CBS has updated their article but according to Drudge, more is coming.

To clarify my postion, I’m not saying that the doc’s aren’t forgeries, but I am saying that it hasn’t been proven that they are. Once it is or CBS admits to someone, I believe that the content of the doc’s is largely correct due to colloborating sources.

Nooo… you have said repeatedly, in this thread, that you DO NOT BELIEVE the documents are forgeries, unless you’ve gone back and edited them all.

As far as the forum, you could name it anything you want.

Good to see you clicked the link!

Nooo... you have said repeatedly, in this thread, that you DO NOT BELIEVE the documents are forgeries, unless you've gone back and edited them all.
No - I said the doc's are probably accurate (see post title) which is different than saying that they are not forgeries. This is also is what Killian's secretary seems to be saying too.

I don't know if they're forgeries or not - how could I? If I mistakening said they were not forgeries, then I was mistaken.
Quote (phoo @ Sep. 15 2004,01:49)
Originals...(I assume - grabbed from MSN)
http://odd.phootoons.com/bushguarddocs.pdf

Screen Shots and Word Docs...(done by me on the laptop)
http://odd.phootoons.com/memo.jpg
http://odd.phootoons.com/memo.doc
http://odd.phootoons.com/suspension.jpg
http://odd.phootoons.com/suspension.doc
http://odd.phootoons.com/physical.jpg
http://odd.phootoons.com/physical.doc

The Word out of the box defaults didn't work perfectly on two of them. The two "signed" docs were done with font point size 11 instead of the default 12 point. Also, one of these needed the right margin of one paragraph moved to the next default click over. That was about 1/8" over to the right.

Since these were the ONLY changes needed to make things line up the way they do I suspect that two docs were done on one computer and the other two were done on a different computer - one that has had the defaults slightly changed.

Or they were done on two different typewriters - one 12 point and one 11 point by someone with an uncanny knowledge about future automatic wordwrap.

What might the chances be that four docs were created 30 years ago that all four automatically word wrap like word does today where one lines up with the 11 point font and the other lines up with the 12 point font.

Would it help if I get someone to sign them and I photocopy them a few times? They might even pass for the originals if that was done.

Look, I'm not try to discount what they say. I'm trying to show you that these aren't worth sticking your neck out for the way you are. There are plenty other reasons to believe that the text in these documents is probably true, or near enough to debate about it, but these documents aren't worth the printer paper they were printed on.

What about the way the letters line up? Typewriters tend to drop a letter lower here and there, and tend not to transfer ink fully. I don't see that on yours. Perhaps that happens in phtocopying? I think you are right, the right test to do now would be to photocopy your versions a few times.
:)