posted                   

quote:

---

Unlike you and me, many people would rather just have someone tell them what to think.

---

Unless you are Porter's life coach. If you are someone who is actually responsible for how he thinks, I take it back.

[ September 10, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]

Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Now, would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron have extravagantly purchased typewriters that contained the th superscript key? Would the military want or require typewriters with the 'th', 'nd', and 'rd' characters? Hmm. Ponder, Ponder. What would the 111th need with a th character... I'll leave that to the enterprising among you to deduce.

---

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

We need Frank Navasky on this case.

---

You get 20 Annie Chick Flickity points

Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e., the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

---

quote:

---

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe today said neither his organization nor John Kerry´s campaign leaked to CBS documents questioning President Bush´s service record, which may have been forged.
He suggested White House adviser Karl Rove could be behind the documents.

---

quote:

---

He did not explain how the White House would benefit by providing forged documents trying to undermine Mr. Bush´s service record...

---

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

The network's statement said typewriters were available in the early 1970s which were capable of printing superscripts. CBS pointed to other Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House that include an example of a "th" superscript.

But one of Killian's fellow officers, an independent document examiner and Killian's own son doubted the veracity of the memos.

---

quote:

---

In an interview with FOX News, Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he is "very dubious" about the genuineness of the documents.

[Click here for more on the interview.]

He said his father was "not in the habit of keeping secret files," didn't have a home office, didn't work after leaving his office and didn't have available to him at work the kind of typewriter that was apparently used to compose the documents.

Gary Killian said the sentiments in the documents didn't reflect his father's "true feelings" about Bush, and that if his father had actually written the papers, he would have signed them using his full name, not just "CYA," which is on the documents.

He also said his father would have typed such a document himself, "hated" typing and was a "very poor" typist. "He did not type memos to himself," Gary Killian added, saying it was "too much effort" and "very dangerous … not a good practice."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years."

Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records to The Washington Post as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and that he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot."

"I don't think there were any documents. He was not a paper person," she said, adding that she was "livid" at CBS journalists who did not, she said, ask her to authenticate the records.

---

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Glyphs in fonts are defined by tiny, minute details. There are sometimes big and obvious differences, but you of COURSE have to examine the originals in high resolution to tell definitively if they are the same.
Shrinking a font down to 10 or 12 pixels high is an absolutely foolish way to compare two typefaces. Hell, if you shrink it down to NINE pixels you can make ANY two serif fonts look the same! Observe:

(In here at the link is a GREAT example that won't print here...)

And in the limit, if you shrink to ONE pixel high, ALL fonts look identical! Why, if I were stupid I'd think it was like magic!

These are obviously two very different typefaces. Superimposed on each other at extremely low resolution, however, they look identical.

In other words, the LittleGreenFootball crowd has successfully demonstrated that two typefaces designed to look similar do indeed look similar, at small type sizes, if you don't look very hard. The fact that this "discovery" has now been trumpeted across the continent by everyone from Rush Limbaugh to the major news networks should make mainstream media sources very, very embarrassed. (It is constitutionally impossible, however, to make LGF contributors embarrassed. They named their site after nose-picking, what else exactly do you need to know?)

Another definitive indication the letter was typewritten, or at least that it was a more clever forgery than a five-minute Word job, can be seen when examining the letter closely, as opposed to the birds-eye view that the right-wing claims rely on.

(The CYA document).

Look particularly at the word "interference", at the beginning of the second line. It contains four 'e's. Two are at the baseline; two are raised slightly above the baseline. It is inconsistent, even on the same line, within the same word.

This isn't an artifact of a fax, or a copy distortion; if that were true, all 'e' elements would be equally misplaced. These character drifts must necessarily exist in the original document. Similar drifts exist throughout, and for other letters.

If you were comparing this document with a Microsoft Word document at a small type size, you wouldn't even notice the differences. But as we have previously demonstrated, if you are comparing those two documents at a small type size, you are a moron.

---

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

CBS got caught promoting obviously faked documents about Bush's national guard service.

---

Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Linotype machines aren't the only types that could produce this.....and the "font" as reported, isn't really NTR.

---

quote:

---

What really disturbs me is that these documents undermine the integrity of a dead man. Are the democrats going to distance themselves from this debacle as they should, or cling to it like the holy grail?

---

pooka, the documents are also in reference to prevent the impugning of the integrity of a live man.

Like a Speaking, I think addressing the truth of the matter (whatever it may be) is the most repectful to all involved. To hide the documents' content -- if accurate - would be tantamount to saying that this man would prefer to maintain a lie after his death. That's insulting to his integrity, too.

It's also possible to hold the documents as accurate without addressing them with the religious love and emotional investment appropriate to a "holy grail." Perhaps they are just another piece of information in the whole story.

I don't think it's obvious that the documents are not forged (certainly, they could have been, and as was mentioned above, someone could have used an old typewriter and old paper to create them). But I don't think it is at all "obvious" that they were forged, and there is enough evidence laying around on the metaphorical ground to show that at a most cursory glance.

What is "obvious," to me, is that at this time people seem to be willing to swallow unnexamined claims fairly blindly, regardless of party affiliation. That polarization gives me cause to worry about what will happen after the November election, regardless of who wins.

[ September 11, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]

Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

I see two camps on this, when reading the various sources.
...
I'm leaning for camp one.

---

So -- just for clarity's sake, not to be challenging you -- you reject "Camp Two." That is, you reject the notion that "they might NOT be forgeries, because it was actually possible that such a thing might have been done."

Or, to put it another way, they must be forgeries. Yes?

(just checking, I promise not to be setting you up for some criticism, here or down the road )

[ September 11, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]

Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged |