Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I just saw Dan Rather on CBS Evening News and he insisted that the documents are genuine. He also said that the critics are "partisan." I'm convinced.

All kidding aside, what was striking was the defensiveness of CBS's response--they decided to attack the messenger rather than shore up their own credibility. They clearly think that the documents are genuine, but are not willing to go too far to demonstrate that. For instance, although they said that they have earlier generation copies of the documents, they would not admit if they have originals. In addition, they surprisingly did not address the issue of proportional typefaces, but only the issue of the font type, the superscript, and the signature. Then they introduced someone who once read documents from that unit and said that these documents seem consistent with those documents.

All of that looks REALLY fishy. Why didn't they declare that they would make the documents available to other document experts? Why are they being so cagey about where they got the documents? And why did they not address either the issue of proportional fonts or the fact that Killian's wife and son both doubt the authenticity of the documents? Instead of responding to all of the charges, they responded only to the ones that they wanted to and ignored the others.

Clearly they are making a major goof here, allowing somebody's ego (Dan Rather?) to get in the way of a proper investigation. Not a good idea. If this thing collapses completely on them, they should at least get out of the way.

It all reminds me of the CNN/Time Vietnam nerve gas story. The people involved kept insisting it was true even after it was clear that they had made some major mistakes. The proper response is to declare that you are committed to the truth, not to the story that you have already put out there.

Posted by at September 10, 2004 04:22 PM

IBM Selectric Composer

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. 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.

1966? Proportional spaced fonts?

Not proof, but the story ain't over yet.

Posted by Bill White at September 11, 2004 09:38 AM

Bill,

The man's wife said he was barely able to type, do you think he could have used the machine you describe where everything was typed twice? Paging Dr. Occam, Paging Dr. Occam......

But for now, Forget the proportional spaced fonts.

The lack of 'Kearning' which no typewriter has ever been able to do and the lack of curled quotes from that era (Typewritten quotes of that era were straight) put lie to the document.

Remember, you just have to show one impossibility to render the document a fraud.

Even if it is proven that 80% of the descrepencies were theoretically possible, that does not render the document 80% valid.

My advice to anyone who thinks this document is genuine is to spare their credibility and escape this sinking ship.

Applying Occam's Razor to this document shreds it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 11, 2004 10:28 AM

Kerning? Nah. Photocopy machines distort too much to prove/disprove kerning.

Read this.

But why worry about 1970s typewriters?

George W. Bush should go on Larry King or with Hannity & Colmes and walk through where he was throughout his Guard years. If the Right is right about this issue, doing this will only enhance the President's credibility.

Posted by Bill White at September 11, 2004 11:54 AM

I only read Kos for comic relief, not information, Bill. In any event, you can throw out all discussion of kerning, and it's still obvious that the documents were generated in Word, recently (relative to the early seventies). It may not be utterly impossible that they were typewritten, but it's so unlikely as to be not worth considering. People who continue to defend their authenticity are just making laughingstocks of themselves. Dan Rather's been one for years, but others shouldn't be so eager to join him.

In any event, the funniest thing about this is that no one outside of the Democrat Party gives a damn about George Bush's National Guard service. Kerry's record is an issue because he chose to make it the cornerstone of his campaign. Bush has never run on his ANG duty.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 11, 2004 12:08 PM

On the subject of forgeries, remember this?

Some say the Left can live with uncertainty while the Right cannot. Is that true? I don't know. Thoughts?

Did the cardboard sign say what the Bash-America types alleged it said? Heck, I do not know - - gosh, there is that word uncertainty again. Is the Killian memo forged. Gosh, I don't know that, either.

But if the Marine investigation proved the photo was forged wouldn't they be screaming that from the rooftops? Spreading the proof everywhere?

The only person who can resolve the Killian memo uncertainty is GWB - - if he gives an honest and candid and in depth interview on his Guard service.

And that would do more to unify America than any Freeper vs Kossack blogosphere war. On 9/11 we need that more than flag waving.

Posted by Bill White at September 11, 2004 12:14 PM

Bill, if you think that this is just coincidence, I don't know how to help you. Are you really saying that your vote hinges on this issue?

There is no need for Mr. Bush to discuss this, and there is no memo uncertainty, except in the minds of Bush haters, or people who just have trouble with critical thinking. The memos were forged.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 11, 2004 12:19 PM

There is a simple scientifc test. IBM Selectrics from the 1960s and early 1970s still exist.

Borrow one or more from a museum and try re-typing the memo. Heck if the forgery artists were really clever, that would be exactly what they did.

But it is all beside the point. Let Bush answer.

Is it relevent? Its exactly as relevant or irrelevant as the Swift Boat controversy.

America would have been better off if neither issue were in play, but remember thr Swifties struck first and last month you were cheering them on, Rand.

Posted by Bill White at September 11, 2004 12:22 PM

No, Bill, if the forgery artists were stupid, that would be what they did, making it look like it was typed in Word now. If they were smart, they would have typed it in a typewriter that matched the other documents, and made it not look like something that was done in Word a month ago. I'm really starting to question your ability to rationally evaluate evidence here.

To the degree that I was "cheering on" the Swift Boat Vets, it was because a) they've been proven right at least on the lie (or delusion) about Cambodia, and b) because Kerry, unlike Bush, has made his service an issue. You seem a little slow today. Why do I have to keep repeating this?

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 11, 2004 12:59 PM

Bill said:

There is a simple scientifc test. IBM Selectrics from the 1960s and early 1970s still exist.

Of course. Many people have been asking for this. So why hasn't CBS come out and said "Here is a test with the such-and-such typewriter using the such-and-so typeface, and we were able to duplicate all the features shown in the memos"?

That would establish the possibility the memos are real, and would bolster CBS's case immensely. Then we would only be arguing about how likely they were.

It would also help greatly if they could say "These such-and-so features found in the memos are inconsistent with the format of the suggested Word document."

And they could do even better - SHOW THE ORIGINALS. That's assuming they can get them, of course.

But it is all beside the point. Let Bush answer.

Is it relevent? Its exactly as relevant or irrelevant as the Swift Boat controversy.

Wrong. Assume that the allegations about Bush stated in the memos are exactly correct. The whole issue about the memos remains. Are they a fraud? If so, who created them? Why did CBS show them without better evidence? Assuming they are real, why didn't their analysts have answers to the obvious authenticity questions before they revealed them publicly? For me, this story has more to do with CBS than Bush.

As for the comparison to the Swiftvets - there is not a single person who has come out publicly and said "I was there in 1973 and I saw those memos then. They are genuine." Or "I was the one who got these memos. Here's the details." Whatever your opinion of the Swiftvets, they put their reputation on the line and came out publicly with specific statements about the events as they remember them.

Incidentally, Hodges is now saying he doesn't think the memos are real. Of course, CBS never showed the purported memos to him in the first place. Hodges was supposed to be their Ace in the hole.

Posted by VR at September 11, 2004 03:51 PM

Guy,

As I have said elsewhere, there is a $15,000 reward out there for anyone who can re-cerate this document with a early 70's era typewriter.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 11, 2004 06:49 PM

Bill,

You are defending incompetent idiots (the Forgers).

Don't like Bush? Fine! Please keep the basis of your dislike within the bounds of relaity and don't follow the Mooreons into never-never land.

Show some self-respect and stop defending the indefensible.

Defense of these memos are bordering on flat Earth lunacy.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 11, 2004 06:53 PM

Rand,

Am I hallucinating or did 99% of all typewriters come in either Pica or Elite fonts?

I seems to remember that from the Typing class I had in high school in 1982. I was word processing by the time I graduated in 1984 so this memeory is buiried in the recesses of my mind. The only time I used typewriters thereafter was to fill out military forms and they has a small memory buffer and lcd display so it was in effect a limited word processor.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 11, 2004 09:11 PM

The attacks on Bush's Guard service and the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry are BOTH very bad for the United States.

Why?

In both cases the argument might (or might not) tip the scales in the election, persuade a few percent of people and make the difference in a 50.5 to 49.5 final result.

But in both cases a hard core of 35% - 40% of the population will believe that the other side lied and lied in a blatant and cynical manner in order to get elected.

How do we fight a very necessary War on Terror when 35% - 40% of the population believes the President is a liar - - no matter who wins?

The argument is intended to cut equally both ways.

Posted by Bill White at September 12, 2004 06:25 AM

Bill, do you seriously believe that there's anything that Bush can do or say to convince the rabid left and their ignorant camp followers that he didn't lie? If Bush wins, to them, it will be another stolen election. That's just a fact of life.

And if Kerry's Swift Boat service, the issue on which he's based his campaign is a lie or exaggeration (as much of it has been shown to be), why should that not be discussed? How does pretending that his fantasies about Christmas in Cambodia and mystical CIA hats are true benefit the electorate? And why should people who were tortured as POWs not be allowed to express their anger for his betrayal of them?

Sorry, there's simply no symmetry here. The President has never based his fitness for office on things done in his youth--he is running on his record, for better or worse. Kerry has based his on nothing else, and the more we look at that early record, the more disturbing (appropriately) many people find it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 12, 2004 07:30 AM

Ask John McCain about the baby the Bush supporters said he fathered with a black woman.

Posted by at September 12, 2004 08:03 PM

Mr. Anonymous, by what broken-brained logic is George Bush responsible for what "Bush supporters" do?

Be very careful how you answer that question, bearing in mind that "Kerry supporters" have accused Bush of being Hitler, and of people who didn't actually serve in Vietnam as being traitors to their country. Oh, wait--the last wasn't just a Kerry supporter--she was a DNC representative.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 12, 2004 08:10 PM

Post a comment