For the FSP Flat Earth Society/(aka Lefty nutjob meltdown)

[Tommy Duncan]

http://home.socal.rr.com/topdeck/killianUFO.jpg

But...but....but...

[Yonivore]

Aw, c'mon TD, that's got to be a forgery!

Let's ask Nbadanallah.

[Samurai Jane]

:lol :rollin :lol

:wacko

[Joe Chalupa]

D'oh!

[Tommy Duncan]

The only question which remains at this point is: how much fun are we going to have at the poor bastards' expense?

[Yonivore]

As my 5 year old was so fond of saying, "All the much!"

[DeSPURado]

You guys still think you proved it was a forgery?

Based on supersrcipt or something?:lol :lol :lol

[Tommy Duncan]

:lol

Holy shit, the nutjob is still arguing that the memos are real.

[DeSPURado]

Did I ever say they were real? Seriously you guys have your heads so far up your own asses its not funny. I always maintained they could be real, and that discrediting them based upon a technology that was later proven to have existed wasn't right.

[Tommy Duncan]

Ah yes, you didn't believe that they were real. You didn't argue that they were real...etc...

Poor bastard.

[DeSPURado]

Whatever. You guys seriosuly never understand scientific method. Your attempted disproof was based upon poor information. It wasn't accurate. How the hell else would any intelligent human being react to someone looking at a piece of information. Constantly claiming its the superscripts that disprove it even after multiple instances where proof has been found that the technology existed.

[Tommy Duncan]

Keep on :spin ing kiddo. Oh yes, you are the wise one here. None of us could possibly be capable of realizing how big of a fool you managed to make out of yourself.

[DeSPURado]

Changing the subject again are we?

Do you acknowledge that superscripts, porportional font, and that specific font existed at that time period?

[Tommy Duncan]

Do you acknowledge that if you type up those memos in Word using the defaults and then run it through a copier about 5 times that it looks awfully like, if not the same as what CBS put out as authentic? Do you acknowledge that Killian's family never knew the man to type or keep personal files or....

Etc. Get a grip. I'm done wasting time on you.

[DeSPURado]

dupe

[DeSPURado]

You didn't answer my question.

And yes two of them (not all of them) look like they could have been written on a word porcessor, but that is coincidental evidence. It could be trivial to the matter of their authenticity.

Now answer my simple question: Did those technologies exist?

[Tommy Duncan]

ARPAnet existed back then. If someone produced a copy of an email from the early 1970s would that make it real? Get a clue.

Where is your proof that National Guard office had such equipment back then? You have none. It is highly unlikely that those documents are authentic for a multitude of reasons.

[DeSPURado]

Its clear they had the technology in 68. I showed you proof of that.

do you need to see it again?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif

[Tommy Duncan]

That is not proof.

Try again.

[DeSPURado]

What is it then a pig flying?

[Tommy Duncan]

http://opinionjournal.com/best/cya.gif

[Tommy Duncan]

That is not proof that Killian used such a machine. Also the superscripts in that doc are different than in the memos.

And again, there is all the other evidence which apparently you are ignorant of at this time, such as the observations of the man's family, the low likelihood that a national guard post would have a typewriter capable of producing a MS Word quality document back in 1972, the fact that any expert who is actually willing to go public has stated they think the docs are likely fakes and so on.

[Tommy Duncan]

http://www.flounder.com/cbs-superscript.jpg

Here's a closeup of the superscript from that '68 document. Notice how the superscript is oriented to the baseline?

:shootme

[DeSPURado]

----- That is not proof that Killian used such a machine. Also the superscripts in that doc are different than in the memos.

It would have been highly unusual for two different documents to have been typed on the exact same machine wouldn't it?

----- And again, there is all the other evidence which apparently you are ignorant of at this time, such as the observations of the man's family,

That isn't proof, its an opinion by family members.

----- the likelihood that a national guard post would have a typewriter capable of producing a MS Word quality document back in 1972 and so on.

Again not a proof, just a matter of probability. If your entire arguement is based upon this contingency claim, then it makes the entire argument flawed. Asking what if they had that specific type writer is just as valid as asking what if they didn't?

[Tommy Duncan]

Here, knock yourself out:

www.flounder.com/bush2.htm (http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm)

[Tommy Duncan]

Well sure. Perhaps someone built a time machine and went back in time with a PC loaded with MS Word and happened to encounter Killian and showed Killian how to use it...


www.weeklystandard.com/Co...7fgqgo.asp (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/617fgqgo.asp)



To accept CBS's insistence the four documents from the early 1970s are authentic, you would have to believe the following:

(1) That the late Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, typed the documents--though his wife says "he wasn't a typist."

(2) That Killian kept the documents in his personal files--though his family says he didn't keep files.

(3) That the disputed documents reflect his true (negative) feelings about Bush and a contemporaneous official document he wrote lauding Bush did not.

(4) That he typed the documents on a technically advanced typewriter, an IBM Selectric Composer--though that model has been tested and failed to produce an exact copy of the documents.

(5) That this advanced typewriter, which would have cost $15,000 or so in today's dollars, was used by the Texas National Guard and that Killian had gained the significant expertise needed to operate it.

(6) That Killian was under pressure to whitewash Bush's record from a general who had retired 18 months earlier.

(7) That Killian's superior, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, was right when, sight unseen, he supposedly said the documents were authentic, but wrong when, having actually viewed the documents, he declared them fraudulent.

[Tommy Duncan]

----- That is not proof that Killian used such a machine. Also the superscripts in that doc are different than in the memos.

It would have been highly unusual for two different documents to have been typed on the exact same machine wouldn't it?

Again your argument is that the existence of that document proves that Killian could have produced a MS Word default document in 1972.




----- And again, there is all the other evidence which apparently you are ignorant of at this time, such as the observations of the man's family,

That isn't proof, its an opinion by family members.

Oh it's proof alright, kiddie.




----- the likelihood that a national guard post would have a typewriter capable of producing a MS Word quality document back in 1972 and so on.

Again not a proof, just a matter of probability. If your entire arguement is based upon this contingency claim, then it makes the entire argument flawed. Asking what if they had that specific type writer is just as valid as asking what if they didn't?

That does not make the argument flawed. And no, obviously I did not base the entire argument on that so your own argument is "flawed."

[DeSPURado]

(1) A secretary probably was more likely don't you think?

(2) It was in his file of records not a personal file.

(3) What does that mean? It doesn't represent his feelings?

(4) I'd like to see such a test. Why hasn't that ever been posted?

(5) How much has the millitary spent on toilets before? On the bradley personal transport? 15k is pennies.


(6) That general made sure to redo every single advancement proceedings to get pictures of himself presiding over the advancement ceremonies LT Bush earned. Even though they had already been done once. But no a retired general and personal friend would never have any influence would he?

(7) You never showed me a quote from Hodges actually saying this? Why would seeing the documents change his mind? Because Hodges would never type it? See number (1)

[DeSPURado]

----- And again, there is all the other evidence which apparently you are ignorant of at this time, such as the observations of the man's family,

That isn't proof, its an opinion by family members.



Oh it's proof alright, kiddie.

Really its proof? You would suck as a lawyer.

[Tommy Duncan]

(1) A secretary probably was more likely don't you think?

Oh so he used a secretary to write out a personal memo.




(2) It was in his file of records not a personal file.


Proof?



(3) What does that mean? It doesn't represent his feelings?


Consistency. Duh.




(4) I'd like to see such a test. Why hasn't that ever been posted?


It's been done. Why are you not aware of this?




(5) How much has the millitary spent on toilets before? On the bradley personal transport? 15k is pennies.

Irrelevant.




(6) That general made sure to redo every single advancement proceedings to get pictures of himself presiding over the advancement ceremonies LT Bush earned. Even though they had already been done once. But no a retired general and personal friend would never have any influence would he?


That does not address the point. The man was retired.





(7) You never showed me a quote from Hodges actually saying this? Why would seeing the documents change his mind? Because Hodges would never type it? See number (1)

Hodges has been quoted throughout the press as saying that. I'm not going to look up all the developments that pertain to this case that you are ignorant of.

[Tommy Duncan]

You want proof? Start with this: www.flounder.com/bush2.htm (http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm)

Given how you have managed to suck as an ambulance chasing wannabe, you might want to rethink that statement.

[DeSPURado]

Oh so he used a secretary to write out a personal memo.
-Usually yes

Proof?
-pentagon statement

Consistency. Duh.
- peoples emotions are ever consistent?


It's been done. Why are you not aware of this?
- proof?


Irrelevant.
- now you're just getting lazy its irrelevant because you say it is?



That does not address the point. The man was retired.
- The man was a close friend, retired or not my step father a full bird colonel still gets saluted.



Hodges has been quoted throughout the press as saying that. I'm not going to look up all the developments that pertain to this case that you are ignorant of.
- he was quoted as saying that he would have believed it if it were hand written. Again see (1)

[Tommy Duncan]

I'll defer to actual lawyers who managed to attend real law school programs...

www.powerlineblog.com/ (http://www.powerlineblog.com/)



Reader Martin Vaala asked an interesting question; here are his query and my answer:

Powerline:
Since you're lawyers, I have a, perhaps trivial, side issue question about the memos. What admissibility hurdles would you have to overcome to get copies of documents entered as evidence?

Martin Vaala

Martin:

Good question. Based on what CBS has released so far, they're not even in the ballpark. You'd have to authenticate them and overcome any hearsay obstacles contained within them. CBS hasn't attempted to do any of this.

CBS is trying to use these forgeries to influence a Presidential election, but they could never get them into evidence in a $10,000 civil case.

John H.

Which kind of puts CBS's stonewalling into perspective.

Funny how I have to consult that site to get a real lawyerly perspective on this matter.

[Tommy Duncan]

Proof?
-pentagon statement


BULLSHIT. The Pentagon has made no such statement with respect to these documents. CBS has not come forward with the source of those documents either.

Come on Perry Mason, don't make it that easy.

[Tommy Duncan]

They salute your Uncle just to humor the old bastard.

[DeSPURado]

Hearsay objections are easily overcome. Records kept in business are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Funny that those lawyers don't know that.

Authenticity would be a matter for the jury to decide both sides would argue that with their own experts.

[Tommy Duncan]

www.presenceofmind.net/20...1069546650 (http://www.presenceofmind.net/2004_09_12_archive.html#109509891069546650)



The Cluetrain doesn't run on Sixth Avenue

I know of my own certain knowledge that the Killian memos are forgeries. I did work on the IBM Selectric Composer in the 70s, both the stand-alone model and the magnetic tape version (a Turing machine that set type--badly). I know from my own bleary-eyed effort how much time it would take to manually produce even one MS-Word style superscript. In fact, no one would have used the Selectric Composer as an office typewriter, and, even if Lt. Col. Killian had done such an insane thing, he never would have wasted the time necessary to manually produce superscripts. All of this ignores the issues of centering, kerning, etc., all of which were difficult to achieve, and required painstaking and hugely error-prone manual effort. CBS expects us to believe that Killian produced a memo 'for the file' that would have taken an hour, at least, to bat out on the Selectric Composer--and which he would have had to start over from scratch at the first typo.

In fact, I pulled some amazing typographic stunts out of that machine. (For example, typing a line in Univers Bold, then cranking the lead by one point (1/72nd inch) and the escapement by one-half point (1/144th inch), then retyping the same line to create a faux Kabel Black look.) Cheap art done with panache. But not quickly, and not on a whim. Like everyone else in the 70s, I wrote copy on a plain vanilla IBM Selectric Typewriter. Rock solid, mono-spaced, six lines to the vertical inch--nothing like the Killian memos released by CBS.

I haven't even bothered to speak up on this aspect of this obvious fraud. Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has proved beyond all doubt that the Killian memos are forged. Stupid stunts like the one pulled over the weekend by Edward Mendelson at PC Magazine prove nothing. In fact, not even an experienced Selectric Composer operator could have produced those memos, nor a Linotype compositor, nor any other typographer using 70s-epoch equipment. 'Set to match' is one of the hardest jobs in fine-art typography, and there was no equipment available then that could do what Charles Johnson has done effortlessly and repeatedly with MS-Word straight out of the box.

This is not subject to debate by rational men. The Killian memos are forgeries.

[DeSPURado]

BULLSHIT. The Pentagon has made no such statement with respect to these documents. CBS has not come forward with the source of those documents either.

They have they were the ones to find the documents during the Freedom of information search.

[Yonivore]

I think we should petition Kori to start a Flounder's Forum for DeSPURate and Nbadanallah.

[Tommy Duncan]

Again, BULLSHIT. There is no proof that the Pentagon released those documents whatsoever.

Anyways, address Newcomer's analysis (http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm) and give me a link proving those documents came from the Pentagon.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh I think that lawyer knows what he is talking about.

[DeSPURado]

Newcomers anaylsis is based upon the premise that the 68 document and the 71 document were typed on the same type of machine. There isn't anything to suggest they were. I have no argument with his analysis there. They probably weren't typed on the same machine.

Again I am not contending that they have to be real. You need to realize that. Personally even if they aren't real there is one exactly like it saying almost exactly the same thing, Hodges expressed that in his claim.

[DeSPURado]

Exceptions to the hearsay rule:


Obviously, we don't have time to examine the substance of either the federal or state exceptions in detail, but you should at least read their descriptions in the federal rules and the Evidence Code.

In the federal rules, the kinds of statements defined as nonhearsay are:

6. Business records, including those of a public agency. Evid. Code §§ 1271, 1280.

Findlaw (http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/litigation/evidence12.html)

[Yonivore]

Oh, that's right, DeSPURate is gonna be lawyer. Well, you're losing your case here, buddy.

[DeSPURado]

Again I am not contending that they have to be real. You need to realize that. Personally even if they aren't real there is one exactly like it saying almost exactly the same thing, Hodges expressed that in his claim.

[Yonivore]

You mean when CBS called him and read the contents of what the purported, to him, to be handwritten notes -- which actually turned out to be forged typed memos -- of Killian's whereupon he said something to the effect of, "well, if he said it..."

That's pretty lousy lawyering counselor.

[Tommy Duncan]

shapeofdays.typepad.com/t...lectr.html (http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html)

September 10, 2004
The IBM Selectric Composer
For a couple of days now we've been talking about whether the CBS memos could have been produced using the technology available in 1972 and 1973. We've talked about two typewriters mainly, both widely used at that time: the IBM Executive series and the IBM Selectric series.

Though the question has hardly been conclusively answered, the consensus of opinion among interested parties seems to be that neither an Executive nor a Selectric could have produced these memos.

My purpose here is not to debate the relative merits of either of those typewriters; that discussion is happening elsewhere. Rather, I want to take a moment to consider the dark horse candidate, the one piece of equipment that is widely believed to have been capable of producing a document similar to these memos, but that has been dismissed as being so improbable an alternative as to hardly bear talking about.

I'm referring to the IBM Selectric Composer. This machine resembles a sophisticated electric typewriter in most respects, but is in fact a full-fledged cold-type typesetting machine. (Cold type as opposed to hot type, machines like the Linotype that would cast entire lines of type in molten lead as the typesetter worked. Ah, those were the days.)

Whenever the topic has turned to the Selectric Composer, it has been dismissed out-of-hand as being far too expensive an item to find in an office on an Air National Guard base: The machine sold for anywhere from $3,600 to $4,400, and fonts were extra and not cheap. Furthermore, the Composer was widely agreed to be far too complicated and slow a machine to use for typing up memoranda, especially ones that were destined to go into a file and not even be distributed.

Update: Many commenters have pointed out — and I'm trying to read 'em all, I promise! — that I'm talking about $3,600 to $4,400 in unadjusted 1973 dollars here. If you use one of the widely available deflation or purchasing-power calculators, you end up with an equivalent in 2004 dollars of between about $16,000 and about $22,000. Bottom line: despite its fairly innocuous appearance, the Selectric Composer was no ordinary office typewriter. It was a pricey little number.

But the nagging question remained: Could an IBM Selectric Composer have been used to produce these documents?

I found my answer the same place everybody finds everything these days: Google. Typing "IBM Selectric Composer" into that search site took me to the aptly named ibmcomposer.org, which describes itself as "the only site on the Internet completely dedicated to the IBM 'Selectric' Composer line of typesetting machines." The site, which is run by Gerry Kaplan, includes information, scanned user manuals, and photographs of the only working IBM Selectric Composer I've been able to find. And, fortunately for me, it also includes an e-mail address.

When I first heard back from Gerry, I felt a little bad for having bothered him. He'd been fielding calls and letters all day, he told me, including an inquiry from CNN. But he was a trouper, willing — enthusiastic even — to help out.

I asked Gerry, in a fit of hubris, if he wouldn't mind trying to reproduce a sample from one of the CBS memos on his Selectric Composer. Just over an hour later, he emailed me back a sample, typed up on his Composer using the 11-point Press Roman type ball and scanned into his computer.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/images/memo.jpg

At first glance, the sample Gerry provided looks pretty darned close. The type is proportionally spaced, just like the type in the CBS memos. Gerry was also able to reproduce the now-infamous superscripted "th," though he had a disclaimer about that.


Superscript didn't come out so good because when you change the escapement lever (from the larger spacing to smaller spacing, and visa versa), sometimes the ball actually slips forward by a small amount, so you can see that the superscript looks disjointed.

But all in all, I thought it looked pretty close. Was it possible that thirty years ago an Air Force Reserve lieutenant colonel typed up a handful of memos on a state-of-the-art typesetting machine?

I was getting ahead of myself. There's a big difference between looking pretty close and actually being pretty close. I knew I wouldn't be able to tell until I got the samples into Adobe Photoshop and superimposed them. I tinted Gerry's sample red for visibility and then overlaid it on top of the original. Here's the result.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/images/comparison.jpg

The most obvious discrepancy was that the line-spacing — what typographers call leading (rhymes with "shredding") — was off. I e-mailed Gerry about this, and he replied: "Yes, if I had really tried, I could have matched the spacing (leading). The leading on the composer can be finely adjusted. Don't know if it is down to the single point level, but it probably is since you can set the leading according to the font, and the leading dial goes from something like 6pt up to 14pt."

Rather than asking Gerry to cough me up another sample, I simply split the lines of type apart in Photoshop and slid them down to align with the baselines of the corresponding lines of type in the original. Here's the adjusted version.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/images/comparison2.jpg

Much better … and pretty darned close to the original. But not close enough. The letterforms in the IBM's Press Roman typeface are very close to the letterforms in the CBS memo. Not surprising, since they're both based on the original Times New Roman font commissioned by the Times of London in 1931. But as we've seen already, different versions of the same font always exhibit subtle differences, usually in letterspacing. This case is no different.

Consider the first line of type. The "14" at the end of the line is almost perfectly aligned in both samples. But the word "to" in "report to commander" is significantly offset. So's "AFB." And, of course, the second line is completely out of whack. The third line is quite close, except for the superscript, the one Gerry said looked disjointed because of a slip in the carrier while he was adjusting the escapement lever.

Hey, what about that superscript? How'd he make it? I asked him via e-mail, and he replied:


To make the superscripted th, I first typed "111", then switched the font to the 8pt font, switched the escapement lever to the smaller escapement (horizontal movement), reverse indexed the paper 1/2 line up, typed the "th", indexed 1/2 line down, switched the escapement lever to the wider escapement, then changed the type ball back to the 11pt font. On other tries, I was able to produce the superscripted th much cleaner (where it looked proper), but on the one I sent you, the carrier slipped forward a little bit when I switched the escapement lever to and from the smaller spacing.

Just to be clear, when Gerry says he switched to the 8-point font, he's not talking about pushing a button. He had to remove the 11-point type ball from the machine and replace it with the 8-point type ball, which in a real office would involve digging in the back of a drawer to find the seldom-used thing. Creating that superscript wasn't quick or easy, and when he did it the carrier slipped and the superscript ended up offset. Unlike the perfectly formed and placed superscripts seen in the CBS memos.

So the superscript is slightly off, and the letterspacing is significantly off. What's left? Something I didn't even think to ask about: the centered type.


Another point that is very suspicious is the centered heading. This is a snap to do with fixed spacing (like courier), but the text is centered using proportional spaced text, which means that the typist had to carefully measure the text prior to typing to calculate its exact center point. Typing a superscript, with all its steps, is simple compared to centering text proportionally without digital electronics.

This point was so important to Gerry that he went out of his way to mention it to me again later in the day: centering type is hard on the Selectric Composer. Two of the memos, May 4 and August 1, 1972, feature a three-line centered head. Each of those lines of type had to be centered by measuring it carefully, doing some math, then advancing the carrier to just the right point on the page. The margin for error would be pretty wide because type can be off by a few points in either direction and still look pretty well centered. It wouldn't be objectionable unless you went looking for it. So it wasn't necessary for Lt. Col. Killian — or his typist — to be millimeter-precise.

And yet … he was.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/centered.jpg

Two letterheads typed three months apart can be superimposed on each other so perfectly that no difference at all can be seen. It's the same deal as before: the red in front was superimposed over the black behind it. You just can't see the black copy because the red copy is perfectly aligned with it. These letterheads weren't centered to within a couple of points of each other. They were centered exactly the same. Three months apart.

Remarkable.

Can we draw any conclusions from this? Well, there's always room for doubt, no matter how slim, no matter how slight. But in my opinion … yes. Based on the significant differences in letterspacing between the Composer font and the font used in the memos, the iffy nature of the superscript "th," and the unbelievable coincidence of the precisely centered headlines, I'm ready to say that the IBM Selectric Composer was not used to produce these memos.

Update: Gerry, who I swear is going to have his own blog before the end of this, had a suggestion.


Something that I think would be a good test for your website may be to reproduce the centered heading using MS Word and Times New Roman. If you can produce centered text that matches identically to the letterhead, it is, in my opinion, a true hoax. The reason is, because even if they were able to center text with a typesetting machine such as the composer, a PC (and good word processor), will center the text even more precisely, not at the "point" level, but rather on the twip level (1/1440th of an inch or 1/20th of a point).

I live to please. Behold:

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/images/centered2.jpg

This is the composite image from above with the new stuff on top. The bottom layer is the first original memo headers in black. Above that is the second original memo headers in red ink. And on top of that in black is the header I created just now using Microsoft Word's default settings and clicking the "center" button. There's a little slippage because the original scans are not perfectly horizontal while the overlay I put on top is. But beyond that … looks like a dead-on match to me.

What are the odds?

[DeSPURado]

And the rest of that quote goes on to say? "well, if he said it..."

[Tommy Duncan]

Still waiting on the proof that those documents came from the Pentagon.

[DeSPURado]

Still waiting for a denial from the whitehouse.

[Yonivore]

Whatever the odds, TD, it won't be good enough for Nbadanallah or DeSPURate.

I found that site, (even posted it here), the guy is thorough and, I'm glad you exhibited the hubris I lacked in contacting him.

[Tommy Duncan]

Exceptions to the hearsay rule:


These are purportedly personal memos.

[DeSPURado]

And to me it doesn't look like a match with word:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/rush22/memosfaked_final_short.gif

[Tommy Duncan]

Ha. You have no answer.

[DeSPURado]

These are purportedly personal memos.
They would fall under the business exception. Theres nothing on them that says personal.

[Tommy Duncan]

Again, CBS' own expert has said that the documents have been scanned, copied, and/or faxed multiple times.

[Tommy Duncan]

That's not certain.

[DeSPURado]

What did I not have an answer to?

[Tommy Duncan]

You have provided no proof to your assertion that the documents came from the Pentagon. Now provide me a quote or a link.

[DeSPURado]

As you said to me: It's been done. Why are you not aware of this?

[Tommy Duncan]

Prof at Rice has his doubts...

www.cs.rice.edu/Database/cork.shtml (http://www.cs.rice.edu/Database/cork.shtml)


... in 1971, even the most powerful available computer systems were not equipped to produce documents like the Killian documents. In Fall 1971, I entered graduate school in Computer Science at Stanford. I soon gravitated to the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, which had the most powerful time-sharing system (a PDP-10) on campus. In either 1972 or 1973, Xerox gave the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory a prototype xerographic printer called a "Xerox Graphics Printer (XGP)". Two similar prototypes were given to the MIT Computer Science Department and the Carnegie-Mellon Computer Science Department. The programming staff at the Stanford AI Laboratory was thrilled with the gift because it was the first opportunity that computer science research community had to develop software to support printer quality type-setting. The three Computer Science Departments cooperated in developing the word processing programs to support the XGP. I wrote my first published research paper and my doctoral disseration using the XGP in Spring 1976. It would take another decade before comparable word processing systems were available to most computer science researchers on minicomputers running Unix. It would take nearly another decade before they were widely used on personal computers.

The typed text in the "Killian memos" is kerned (check out letter combinations like "fo" and "fe"), but the (IBM) Composer text is clearly not. Kerning is a computationally complex task beyond the capacity of any mechanical typewriter--even one as expensive and elaborate as the IBM Selectric Composer.

[DeSPURado]

CBS is running a story right now about the docs maybe you ought to watch it.

we can throw experts at eachother all night:

After CBS News on Wednesday trumpeted newly discovered documents that referred to a 1973 effort to ''sugar coat" President Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard, the network almost immediately faced charges that the documents were forgeries, with typography that was not available on typewriters used at that time.

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.

(SNIP)

Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backed_on_bush_documents?pg=2)

[Tommy Duncan]

Where is the link proving that the Pentagon is the source of those four memos that Rather based his report on?

[Tommy Duncan]

That's ok kiddo some of us aren't unemployed and sitting on our asses at home.

[DeSPURado]

Why do you insist on making this personal. Just makes you look like an ass.

[Yonivore]

Well, DeSPURate, you've been looking like a silly ass, on this topic, since yesterday...I guess you needed the company.

[Tommy Duncan]

Ah yes, Bouffard.

www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php (http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000859.php)



September 11, 2004
HOT UPDATE: Dr. Bouffard Speaks About Boston Globe!
INDC EXCLUSIVE!! MUST CREDIT INDC!!

I just interviewed Dr. Bouffard again, and he's angry that the Globe has misrepresented him. He's been getting hate mail and nasty phone calls since last night's story was posted, and he wants me to correct the record. He did not change his mind, and he and his colleagues are becoming more certain that these documents are forgeries.

Instead of providing my analysis of our conversation, I'm largely going to transcribe his unaltered quotes (please note that he's a rather colorful, engaging older gentleman):

(I'm dynamically updating as I transcribe quotes, so keep refreshing)

"What the (Boston Globe) did now sort of pisses 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!"

"I would appreciate it if you could do whatever it takes to clear this up, through your internet site, or whatever."

"All I'd done is say, 'Hey I want to look into it.' Please correct that damn impression!"

"What I said to them was, I got new information about possible Selectric fonts and (Air Force) documents that indicated a Selectric machine could have been available, and I needed to do more analysis and consider it."

"But the more information we get and the more my colleagues look at this, we're more convinced that there are significant differences between the type of the (IBM) Composer that was available and the questionable document."

"The (new Selectric) typefaces sent to me invalidated the theory about the foot on the four (originally reported to INDC), but after looking at this more, there are still many more things that say this is bogus."

"... there are so many things that are not right; 's crossings,' 'downstrokes' ..."

"More things were looked into; more things about IBM options. Even if you bought special (superscripting) keys, it's not right. There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter."

"Any form of kerning may be critical (he hasn't rendered a definitive verdict if there is a form of kerning yet). If there is any type of kerning, it obviously isn't a typewriter or it's definitely a typeset document."

On the Globe and others:

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

On the source of the 1969 Air Force Supply Memo:

Dr. Bouffard received an e-mail from the address of Roy Huber, a noted retired forensic analyst in Ottawa, but a response indicated that it was Lynn Huber.

"I presumed that it was a relative of Roy. The document said that there are fonts from the IBM that don't have the foot on the '4.'"

The e-mail also contained an attachment to possible Selectric fonts that indicated that the "4" had a foot, and the Air Force memo that indicated that the military purchase of such a machine was a possibility.

But since having had more time to analyze the fonts of the Selectric:

"We've looked into more and more IBM options and ... there are all kinds of things that say this isn't a typewriter."

UPDATE: These are all the transcribable quotes that Dr. Bouffard gave me at this time. More as the story develops.

I provide his words, you decide ... but I have come to the definitive conclusion that the Boston Globe misrepresented their main source's testimony to stunningly misleading effect.

Whether or not the docs are even forgeries or not is almost secondary in the media narrative at this point. The fact is, Dr. Bouffard was used as the main source to write the following headline in the Boston Globe:

Authenticity backed on Bush documents

Square that headline with the quotes from their source that are listed above.

UPDATE: NOTE TO COMMENTERS - Feel free to parse the details of whether the document is fake or not, if that's your passion, but I think that many of you that bother are missing the real point here. At this point, with this angle, the veracity of the document is almost secondary to the Boston Globe's willingness to mislead you into believing that the case is closed.

UPDATE: Also, to be perfectly clear - Dr. Bouffard is not indicating yet that the the docs are definitely fake, he's just clueing me in on a preponderance of indications that it may be likely. Expert analysis is still underway.

Just want to make sure that I don't present a mischaracterization that is the opposite of the Globe's presentation.

UPDATE: By the way, if anyone would like to contact the ombudsman for the Globe ...

Christine Chinlund
[email protected]
617-929-3020 / 3022

Is misrepresentation by the Globe a pattern?

UPDATE: By the way, read my previous analysis of the Boston Globe story, written before I re-interviewed Dr. Bouffard for this post. Was my analysis correct?

[Tommy Duncan]

Looks like I struck a nerve.

Suffice it to say, I think most readers would feel you are sporting the Donkey's head around these parts today.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh well, so much for the claim that the Pentagon was the source for those documents.

[DeSPURado]

:sleep Seriously whatever. You haven't proven that these are fakes. You just choose to accept them as such because they undermine your beliefs. I don't really give a **** if they are real or not. Either way Bush went AWOL, didn't show up for a medical exam at the same time they started doing random drug searches, and didn't attempt to get into a unit in Boston where he was supposed to finish out his credits.

CBS is standing by the documents, The white house is refusing to answer any direct question about them. What have they got to hide about it? My best guess is that some of these docs may be fake (the two that look like word docs) But the WH can't comment on it, because they know real ones out there exist saying the exact same thing. And they can't say for sure whether or not these are fake, because they don't know.

I do a disservice to the democratic party by continuing to argue with you because it really draws away from the other important questions, and its just falling for the republican trap. These documents have been well tarred whether fairly or not. It just draws away from the perpoderence of evidence that Bush went missing in Alabama, that he was overqualified to tranfer to a non drilling unit.

[Tommy Duncan]

And Newcomer's analysis is based on a bit more than that.

As the man said:


The probability that any technology in existence in 1972 would be capable of producing a document that is nearly pixel-compatible with Microsoft’s Times New Roman font and the formatting of Microsoft Word, and that such technology was in casual use at the Texas Air National Guard, is so vanishingly small as to be indistinguishable from zero.



In 1972, technology available in the office, including proportional typewriters, could not do this. So it is clear that the only way this document could have been done is using a modern computer font, and the placement is pixelwise identical to Microsoft’s Times New Roman. The work we did at CMU could not support kerning or pseudo-kerning of text. We knew about kerning, but our software could not support it. I have not examined a New York Times of 1972, but I would be extremely surprised if the font used at that time exhibited any form of kerning (I should point out that Linotype machines—the hot-lead machines—had paired characters such as “fi”, which were actually a single slug. Character sequences like these are called a “ligature” and were a special case of kerning. Common ligatures included fi, fl, ffi, ffl, among others. This was an example of kerning built into the font definition, and Linotype machines had separate keys that dropped these slugs into place. Lead type set by hand also had similar ligatures. The illustration is scanned from The Unicode Standard Version 3.0, Addison-Wesley, 2000, p.804).



Why should he be believed? Well,


There has been a lot of activity on the Internet recently concerning the forged CBS documents. I do not even dignify this statement with the traditional weasel-word “alleged”, because it takes approximately 30 seconds for anyone who is knowledgeable in the history of electronic document production to recognize this whole collection is certainly a forgery, and approximately five minutes to prove to anyone technically competent that the documents are a forgery. I was able to replicate two of the documents within a few minutes. At time I a writing this, CBS is stonewalling. They were hoaxed, pure and simple. CBS failed to exercise anything even approximately like due diligence. I am not sure what sort of "expert" they called in to authenticate the document, but anything I say about his qualifications to judge digital typography is likely to be considered libelous (no matter how true they are) and I would not say them in print in a public forum.

I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers, but in 1970 when this work was first done, lasers were not part of the electronic printer technology (my way of expressing this is “I was working with laser printers before they had lasers”, which is only a mild stretch of the truth). We published a paper about our work (graphics, printer hardware, printer software, and typesetting) in one of the important professional journals of the time (D.R. Reddy, W. Broadley, L.D. Erman, R. Johnsson, J. Newcomer, G. Robertson, and J. Wright, "XCRIBL: A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation," Information Processing Letters (1972, pp.246-251)). I have been involved in many aspects of computer typography, including computer music typesetting (1987-1990). I have personally created computer fonts, and helped create programs that created computer fonts. At one time in my life, I was a certified Adobe PostScript developer, and could make laser printers practically stand up and tap dance. I have written about Microsoft Windows font technology in a book I co-authored, and taught courses in it. I therefore assert that I am a qualified expert in computer typography.

[Tommy Duncan]

Awwww, the little :baby is mad because his bullshit was exposed.

[DeSPURado]

Why is the white house refusing to answer simple questions about them? Seriosuly they flat out refused to take a stand about this issue?

[DeSPURado]

You should see me angry I am moderately amused actually. Your continuing to gloat over a proving something which you haven't done.

[Tommy Duncan]

Again, where is the proof that those documents came from the Pentagon?

Amusing? Yes, you have been quite that today.

[Tommy Duncan]

You should see me angry

Oh no I shudder, Gimp.

[DeSPURado]

Whats really sad is that republicans in general seem to treat this all as a game of what can we get away with. Can we quiet the tide of AWOL claims by claiming this a forgery? Its all a game to you isn't it? You don't really care one way or the other, so you can lie your way to the top. Using every deciet possible to make it look above baord. Do you really believe Bush did things on the level, and did any service to his country when he actually served?

[Tommy Duncan]

How can we stand idly by while a major news organization smears a presidential candidate with forged documents?

Damn kid, settle down. You are so mad right now your fingers are tripping over themselves.

[DeSPURado]

You should see the smile on my face I am not mad. Just hitting a cord within you. You know I am right about this. I am not sayign these documents are real or fake just to undermine bush. If they are fake I am going to be pissed with whoever made them.

But honestly does this smear the president? Isn't he already guilty of everything implied in those documents? You yourself have admitted to half of the things implied by them. You acknowledge he probably didn't take the medical exam because they started doing random drug screenings at that time.

If there actually isn't a piece of paper with Killian's name on it ordering him to take a medical exam that actually implies the same thing as the CYA document. It imples he was given special treatment.

[travis2]

One other item of a possibly trivial nature...

Unless the Air Force is recycling an old memo style, the style those purported memos were written in (namely, the MEMORANDUM TO line and the right-tabbed signature block) is the current style.

However, back when I first joined the Air Force, the letter style was different. The header was 3 lines, not 2 (Reply to:/Subject:/From: ) . Further, the signature block was at the left margin, not tabbed to the right.

The style shown in the memos wasn't directed to be used until the late 80's/early 90's.

[Yonivore]

Now, you're just being trivial, travis. ;)

[DeSPURado]

Air force may not equal the Air National Guard but it could be a valid point travis.

[DeSPURado]

I'm going to repeat this just to do so:


But honestly does this smear the president? Isn't he already guilty of everything implied in those documents? You yourself have admitted to half of the things implied by them. You acknowledge he probably didn't take the medical exam because they started doing random drug screenings at that time.

If there actually isn't a piece of paper with Killian's name on it ordering him to take a medical exam that actually implies the same thing as the CYA document. It imples he was given special treatment.

[travis2]

Isn't he already guilty of everything implied in those documents?

Prove it.

[Yonivore]

"Isn't he already guilty of everything implied in those documents?"
If so, why the forged documents?

[DeSPURado]

Isn't he already guilty of everything implied in those documents?



Prove it.


Bush was suspended from flying for failure to show up to a medical exam. Thats a matter of public record. What we don't have is a commabder yelling at him for being a no show. If there indeed isn't such an order by Killian than why was Killian giving him special treatment?

[travis2]

That doesn't make him guilty of "everything" in those memos.

[DeSPURado]

The memos don't imply much else. They imply he wanted to transfer to a non drilling unit. Which he did. And they imply that he got special treatment, which based upon the fact that he transferred to a non drilling unit, which the gurad rejected his request to trasfer the first time becuase he was over qualified, but somehow he got the transfer anyways.

[travis2]

You can't prove the "special treatment" part. Sorry.

[DeSPURado]

Look if the order to show up for a medical exam was a fake as you contend wouldn't that be special treatment if there were no such order?

[travis2]

No...you're presuming he couldn't have been transferred on the up-and-up. No proof to your assertion. Try again.

[Tommy Duncan]

Every expert in authenticating documents, type, typewriters, etc...who is willing to put their name along with their opinion has come out with the opinion that it is highly unlikely that those documents are real, save CBS' expert. A number have said straight up that they look forged. CBS' expert is a handwriting expert and he signed off on only one of the documents. He himself noted that the documents had been copied and/or faxed so many times.

Saying that it has not been "proven" that they are fakes rings rather hollow and does not reflect the reality of where this issue stands in the media at the moment. Even the NY Times has questioned their authenticity, along with ABC, the Washington Post, Newsweek, etc. This is not just the GOP who is questioning the authenticity of those documents.

Noted computer type expert Newcomer states up front he is not a Bush supporter, but he does believe it is quite important that we know whether or not that certain prominent news organizations have not perpetuated (knowingly or not) a hoax.

Again, DSO argued for quite some time that these documents, which he/she/it believed to be true, were significant because they proved the President was not being honest.

Now DSO wants us to believe that doesn't matter.

As we have seen in this thread, DSO is backtracking so fast he probably has his nose in his ass.

The only issues now in reality, not in leftwing partisanland, is who created these documents, who gave them to CBS, why CBS apparently was unable to detect the hoax, and will CBS admit its mistake.

[DeSPURado]

There are two issues here.

(1) the transfer. He was flat out denied the transfer the first time. As I have stated, the Air guard wouldn't allow a pilot they dumped a couple of grand on to train, to a unit that coudln't use that service.

Tranfer Request Doc (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc7.gif)
Request denied...its not allowed under his current millitary obligation. (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif)

(2) Absence of an order to report for a failed medical checkup
Document showing bush was grounded for failing to report for a physical (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif)

Others not being argued right now:
(3) How he got in, in the first place
(4) Another sevice document penalizing bush for bad attendance. (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif)

[Tommy Duncan]

So he missed a physical, which was known, and he received an honorable discharge.

Great.

Again, the memos, even if they weren't such obvious fakes, would have proved very little.

What really matters is who created them and who was in on it. If it was the Kerry campaign then this election is most likely over.

[DeSPURado]

Which brings me back to my question did Bush's service actually serve this country in any way shape or form?

[Tommy Duncan]

Apparently so as he received an honorable discharge. If official military documents are good enough for John Kerry then they are certainly good enough for George W. Bush.

[travis2]

That's already been covered in other areas. One, he already had sufficient points accrued to qualify for "satisfactory" attendance. Two, he had already made his intentions known about leaving the Guard anyway. Three, with the Vietnam War winding down, the AF/AFRes/ANG were trying to get people to leave anyway.

You have yet to prove he did anything wrong.

[Tommy Duncan]

Bush did serve in the National Guard full time for 2 years and earned a rather large number of points, well above the minimum required. In every subsequent year he earned more than the minimum required and that is why he was discharged from the Guard about 7 months early. The Guard operated on that type of system when it came to service.

Hence, again, why for the Bush haters, those documents must be true.

[DeSPURado]

You have yet to prove he did anything wrong.

Wait you're a millitary guy. How do you feel about the guy that just slides by, only attends enough drills to get credit. Being in the millitary is not about doing the bare minimum its about serving this great country of ours.

I don't think he did anything wrong per say, just that he didn't serve the country, and basically ripped off the American tax payer getting to putz around on fighter jets.

[Hook Dem]

"I don't think he did anything wrong per say, just that he didn't serve the country, and basically ripped off the American tax payer getting to putz around on fighter jets." ..........I'll bet you didn't feel that way about "slick willy" did you despurate?:lol

[Tommy Duncan]

And, again, it is quite interesting that CBS has yet to reveal its source for the documents. It is interesting that Rather chose to interview Ben Barnes (whose cred is highly suspect) as well as Jim Moore.

So who will be the fall guy? Who will take the bullet to protect DRather?

[SpursWoman]

How do you feel about the guy that just slides by, only attends enough drills to get credit.

He accumulated an enormous amount of *extra* points needed to fulfill his obligation. WTH do you get "just slides by" ?


Where is that thread that actually breaks down his service by year? I think DeSpurado was MIA when that was posted. It might clear a few things up--although I'm sure it'd just start a whole 'nother round of :spin .

[Tommy Duncan]

Wait you're a millitary guy. How do you feel about the guy that just slides by, only attends enough drills to get credit. Being in the millitary is not about doing the bare minimum its about serving this great country of ours.

Oh my, this is all you have left.

Again, the man served full time for two years. He accumulated about six times the points he needed in those years. After that he continued to surpass the minimums.

According to Killian's son, Bush volunteered to be considered to go to Vietnam twice.

Your characterization is a tad bit off, to say the least. At this point you are running on fumes (or inhaling some rather strong ones).

[DeSPURado]

Seriously how else do you explain the transfer. He was not qualified to serve in Alabama under his service contract. How did he get that tranfer to go through? That was special treatment, what other evidence do you need?
Tranfer Request Doc (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc7.gif)
Request denied...its not allowed under his current millitary obligation. (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif)

[DeSPURado]

The points in the millitary system have to be made up within 30 days of the missed days. That was another bit of special treatment.

[Tommy Duncan]

www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp)

February 18, 2004, 8:40 a.m.

Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed

Byron York
[email protected]

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"

In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service.

Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.


FOUR YEARS OF FLYING

The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes.


THE MOVE TO ALABAMA

The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.

The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."

The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."

On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968) .

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."


THE UNENDING ATTACK

Despite the evidence, Democrats have continued to accuse the president of shirking his duty during his Guard career. "He went to Alabama for one year," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said on ABC on February 1. "He didn't show up. Call it whatever you want, AWOL, it doesn't matter." After Bush made his Guard records public, McAuliffe released a statement saying the documents "create more questions than answers." Other Democrats, as well as an energetic team of liberal columnists and bloggers, echoed McAuliffe's comments.

Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Bush's detractors is that they managed to sell the idea — mostly unchallenged in the press — that Bush's Air National Guard service consisted of one year during which he didn't show up for duty. Far fewer people asked the question: Just how did Bush become a fighter pilot in the first place? Didn't that involve, say, years of work? Bush's four years of service prior to May 1972 were simply airbrushed out of the picture because many reporters did not believe they were part of the story.

It also seems likely that some of Bush's adversaries used the Guard issue as a way to get at other questions about the president. The Guard record was said to have a bearing on Bush's credibility, on the war in Iraq, on his fitness to lead. In addition, some journalists were nearly obsessed with forcing the president to release medical records from his time in the Guard because they hoped those records might reveal some evidence of drug use. The White House did not release the full set of medical records but did allow reporters to view them; the documents were entirely unexcep tional and contained nothing about drug use.

While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say.

Now the evidence is public; anyone who is interested in learning about Bush's service can do so. In the end, the president had the facts on his side. But he also had the good fortune to have the allegiance of men who feel so intensely about the Guard and their service that they wanted to speak out even if the White House didn't seem to care. Men like Campenni and Harmon were deeply offended when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry equated Guard service during the Vietnam War with fleeing the country or going to jail. That was simply too much. "I'm not a Bushie," says Harmon. "The thing that got a few of us crawling out from under a rock, at no instigation from the White House, was that Guard service was being portrayed as being like a draft dodger."

[Tommy Duncan]

Still waiting for the link to the source that those memos came from the Pentagon...

[DeSPURado]

Credits have to be made up within 30 days of a missed drill. Not to hard for you to understand is it Tommy?

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh it's not hard for me to understand, like a lot of things.

What I, and I am sure many others here do not understand is why you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

You need the memos to be true, just like CBS needed them to be true.

And again, as I have said before, if true they prove very little except to extreme partisans such as yourself.

The real issue in the here and now is who created those documents which most sane people regard as extremely likely to be fakes. That matters because then we would know that CBS participated in a hoax, and that matters a fell of a lot more here in 2004 than if Bush missed a physical back in the early 1970s.

Pretty fucking clear, at least to those of us who don't have to backtrack on what we said yesterday.

[DeSPURado]

For waht do I need those memos they are already spelled out for everyone, just not so explicitly for the reading impaired like yourself.

Tranfer Request Doc (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc7.gif)
Request denied...its not allowed under his current millitary obligation. (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif)

[travis2]

The proof against you is in the article. Obviously he was credited for time served.

In the Spurs forum, I believe the applicable term would be "scoreboard"...

[DeSPURado]

Incorrectly credited ergo special treatment. Am I making the 30 day credit thing up?

[travis2]

I think I'll take the word of those in charge at the Guard over yours, thank you...

[travis2]

BTW...at least one of the links you posted proves my point about the letter format of the time...

[DeSPURado]

What is it called when a stated official policy is not applied selcetively to one of its members? I'm sure they had that policy just for fun becuase they are more of guidelines than rules really.

[travis2]

Actually I've never heard of the 30 day rule. And even if it is in effect now, that doesn't mean it was in effect 30+ years ago. If you think personnel rules have remained static over that time, you're in for a big surprise...

[Tommy Duncan]

This is rather entertaining.

DSO is an internet hero.

[DeSPURado]

You can not miss more than ten percent of drills which Bush did in his last year
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1_files/image012.gif

missing a medical exam requires orders to report for a medical exam. Or a tour of active duty.
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1_files/image031.gif

more to be edited in:
http://www.jordansplace.net/politics/images/kerr_bush_nam.gif

[SpursWoman]

You know, I can make that exact watermark in MS Word. :wink

[Tommy Duncan]

That bottom one for Bush is probably from when he was discharged whereas the one above is while Kerry was on duty and of course he ended up on duty because he was activated from the Naval Reserves. When he volunteered for the swift boats they were only patrolling offshore Vietnam.

[travis2]

(a) In your first picture you've cut out a lot of context. I can't evaluate exactly what is being discussed. Why don't you post the rest of it?

(b) In your second picture, the situation discussed is being involuntarily called to active duty. Not relevant to this discussion.

(c) In your third picture, all you are showing is a portion of Bush's "dream sheet". Volunteer/non-volunteer status for overseas duty was and is a standard block on those forms. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

You are definitely showing your lack of direct knowledge of the military personnel and assignments systems.

[DeSPURado]

Hey I am purporting them to be anything. Actually I am hoping you will tell me what they mean. To me it looks like Bush missed some shit.

This next doc shows Bush only had 9 days for something and he is being ordered to report. Thats not an everyday occurance is it?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc17.gif

[travis2]

Your letter has nothing whatsoever to do with being involuntarily called to active duty. It is an order to report for the standard 2-week drill time.

[Tommy Duncan]

http://www.sondrak.com/archive/cbsscam2.jpg

[SpursWoman]

That just looks like when & where to report.


:wtf

[Tommy Duncan]

But it proves that the Guard wanted him to report somewhere SW! This is major.

:baby

[DeSPURado]

Travis I know its not a call to active duty....Its an order to report for drills. Why would they have to order him to report? That isn't something they send out everyday is it?

[SpursWoman]

:lol @ TD

[DeSPURado]

Then you have the famous not observed comment:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc4.gif

[travis2]

BTW...here is the current "30-day" rule. As expected, it is not as you have stated.


From ANGI 36-2001 (15 Jan 97)

6.6. Equivalent Training (EQT). A member may be allowed to make up a UTA that was missed even if the UTA was missed without prior approval. EQTs can be performed in a pay status for excused absences and in a non pay status (retirement points only) for unexcused absences.

6.6.1. Commanders may allow individuals to make up a maximum of four missed UTA periods in a paid EQT status per fiscal year [U.S.C. Title 37, Section 206(e)]. An EQT in a pay status must be performed within 30 calendar days of the missed scheduled UTA period and within the same fiscal year.

6.6.2. An EQT period without pay (for retirement points only) may be performed outside of 30 calendar days of the missed scheduled UTA period but within the member's anniversary year. UTAs performed in a non-pay status will be documented on NGB Form 105m/s or a locally substituted form, held separately from attendance records for UTAs in a pay status, and forwarded directly to MPF.


The point being...even now, being outside of 30 days doesn't mean you can't get credit. It means you won't get paid for it.

[DeSPURado]

What about the 10% rule then?
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1_files/image012.gif

[travis2]

Don't know, Despurado. However, the military writes orders for lots of things. I don't see any "smoking gun" there.

Hell, when I entered OTS, I had one of those with my name on it. And no I wasn't late or in trouble. It's just the way they do things.

[travis2]

I already told you about that picture. Try reading my response.

[travis2]

And as far as the OER goes...where's the back side?

[DeSPURado]

I did its a picture. I can't look up the original as I don't have it, but from the part shown it seems very clear. You can not miss more than ten percent of your drills.

[travis2]

In what context? Again, you show your utter ignorance of anything military. It is most certainly not very clear.

[DeSPURado]

the back
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

[SpursWoman]

"Not been observed", as in no one saw the whites of his eyes, or "not been observed"...flying a plane?

[SpursWoman]

"has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."


WTF do the "AWOL" accusations come from? Looks like he was there to me.

:wtf

[Tommy Duncan]

www.nationalreview.com/ke...ryspot.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp)

60 MINUTES TO INVESTIGATE 60 MINUTES II (PARODY*)

[09/13 06:13 PM]

NEW YORK — In a stunning development, the flagship news program of CBS, 60 Minutes, has decided to investigate its Wednesday night counterpart, ‘60 Minutes II.’

60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt came out of retirement in order to investigate the spinoff program, which, he pointed out, was an idea he had always hated and opposed anyway.

“This story has all the classic ingredients parts of a archetypal 60 Minutes story,” Hewitt said. “Forgeries and lies. A brazen attempt to influence a presidential election. Shadowy political operatives. A powerful institution that is hiding behind short, defiant statements. The whole situation just screamed a need for a hard-hitting reporter to hold the powerful guys in suits accountable. It just happens that in this case, we’re interviewing the powerful guys in suits down the hall.”

The media world is abuzz with excitement about the shocking interview of CBS Evening News host Dan Rather by Mike Wallace. CBS has released one particularly tense exchange:

(Wallace and Rather sit opposite each other, eye to eye, almost mirror images.)

Wallace: Expert… after expert… after expert has declared these documents (dramatically holding up four sheets of paper) to be forgeries. What is your response to them?

Rather: We have solid sources.

Wallace: Who are they?

Rather: I’m not going to say.

Wallace: Why should people trust you?

Rather: Do you know who I am? I’ve been in the news business for 42 years!

Wallace: Do you know who I am? I’ve been in the news business for 53 years! And Christopher Plummer played me in the movie!

Rather: I am 100 percent certain that the chances of this document being real are almost 51 percent.

Wallace: You’re being evasive.

Rather: I’m not being evasive, I’m just being more nimble than a one-legged Texas bullfrog before a prairie thunderstorm!

Wallace: That doesn’t even make sense.

Rather: I’m tired of this criticism coming up with regular frequency, Kenneth.

Wallace: What frequency? And who’s Kenneth?

60 Minutes will present its report, “The Great CBS News Civil War of 2004” on Sunday.

WARNING: The above statement is a parody. So far.


*So indicated for the resident leftwingnuts who can't take a joke.

[DeSPURado]

Except no one saw him in Alabama. No one remembers seeing him there his pay roll records don't show he was there. Oh except for a dental exam.

[DeSPURado]

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

USNEWS (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm)

[Tommy Duncan]

1. He received an honorable discharge. Again, he just needed to accumulate a certain level of service per year, which he did.

2. No one cares. The only reason I bothered to participate in this discussion was because someone tried to create a 30 year old memo using MS Word and CBS told us it was true.

[DeSPURado]

missed this line didn't you?

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

[SpursWoman]

"has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."



That was signed by 2 officers, in case you missed that part.

[Tommy Duncan]

There is some dispute to that and again, WGAF?

[DeSPURado]

They were in alabama too?

[Tommy Duncan]

Your party is running against an incumbent president and all you have to offer are some unproven allegations about what happened 30 years ago. Pretty fucking dumb. The GOP tried some of that in 1996. Didn't work.

[travis2]

The back side of the OER gives the answer. Again, no problems there.

As for his service in Alabama, once again you are incorrect. There are reports of people "seeing" him.

Even so...given that he was just one airman in a 900-member unit...and not in the command structure...and not from the area originally...I put no weight whatsoever on the "I didn't see him there" stories.

[DeSPURado]

Clinton wasn't lying about it at the time Bush is. Big difference, especially if you think lying about sex is a major offense.

[Tommy Duncan]

Clinton certainly lied about that part of his life. But again, most people did not care. Well, except for right wing nutjobs.

Now it's 2004 and left wing nutjobs such as yourself are falling in the same trap.

[DeSPURado]

His payroll records also show no attendance for about six months in Alabama. You can't discard that either.

[DeSPURado]

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc12.gif

[travis2]

And your point with this one is.......?

[DeSPURado]

Not rated for administrative reasons?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc28.gif

[Tommy Duncan]

That reads like a admin problem. OMFG.

[DeSPURado]

(This message was left blank)

[SpursWoman]

Even so...given that he was just one airman in a 900-member unit...and not in the command structure...and not from the area originally...I put no weight whatsoever on the "I didn't see him there" stories.


What, you mean he didn't go around commanding everyone to salute him...for he would be their Commander-In-Chief in 32 years? That'd have gotten him remembered a little better, I'm sure.


:lol

[travis2]

I'm still waiting, Despurado...

SW...gee, ya think? :rollin

[Tommy Duncan]

www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp)


THE MOVE TO ALABAMA

The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.

The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."

The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."

On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968) .

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh, yeah, well this changes everything!

http://www.imao.us/img/bush_awol_memo.jpg

Get a fucking life already.

[DeSPURado]

John Calhoun said he saw Bush on days Bush was still in Texas. :next3

[Tommy Duncan]

link?

WGAF?

[DeSPURado]

Yesterday, though, there was a new development

Advertisement
when one of the president's fellow Guardsmen, John B. Calhoun, came forward to say that he clearly remembered him showing up for his required drills in Alabama through the summer and fall of 1972.

"We didn't have the planes that he could fly," Calhoun told the Associated Press. "But he studied his manuals, he read flying safety regulations, accident reports -- things pilots do quite often when they are not getting ready to fly or if they don't have other duties."

Interestingly, though, as the Houston Chronicle notes this morning, the documents released Friday night show "Bush's transfer to the Alabama squadron wasn't approved until September 1972, months after Bush's presence as recalled by Calhoun."

link (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.php)

[Tommy Duncan]

So the transfer was approved afterwards. Bureaucratic efficiency.

[DeSPURado]

:lol Calhoun was caught lying...Get over it.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh, I was never on it to begin with. But thanks for the humor your kool aid drinking self has provided.

[DeSPURado]

The one guy who supposedly saw him lied about seeing him. Gee now I'm sure he showed up in 'Bama.

[Tommy Duncan]

Turnipseed remembers him as well.

[SpursWoman]

So, Killian signed a report that states that Bush performed equivalent non-flying training in Alabama and that doesn't mean shit, basically.


But some forged documents signed by Killian can't POSSIBLY be wrong.


Damn, did Jerry know his signature is getting put on this bullshit all over the ANG?


:lol :lol


Poor Jerry is probably :spin ing in his grave wondering WTF-else he signed.

[DeSPURado]

Turnipseed never says he actually remembers a specific instance he saw him, he said something to the effect "but I am sure I saw him."

[Tommy Duncan]

Damn, you're the best lawyer in this thread SW.

:lol

[Tommy Duncan]

That's good enough. There were 900 men.

[DeSPURado]

I'm sure thats good enough for you.

The questions CBS asked bush but he refused to answer:

1. Did Lt. Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer?

2. Was Lt. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to Texas Air National Guard standards?

3. Did Lt. Bush ever take the physical he was required and ordered to take, and if not, why not?

4. Did Lt. Bush complete his Guard commitments?

[Tommy Duncan]

The questions Tommy Duncan has asked and wants answered:

1. Where is the source that the memos CBS recently unearthed came straight from the Pentagon?

2. Who gives a **** (popularly abbreviated as WGAF) what Bush did 30 years ago?

3. Who thought they could create a forgery by using MS Word?

[DeSPURado]

Late Wednesday night the White House released copies of the new memos to the Associated Press. Although the controversy over Bush's service has gone on for at least a decade, Pentagon officials said they found the memos only after performing an exhaustive search "out of an abundance of caution" in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the AP.

SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/09/MNGKE8LUFG1.DTL)

[Tommy Duncan]

The author is mistaken for CBS relied on the memos it had in its possession when it ran its story last Wednesday, implying that it had them in its posession prior to "late Wednesday night."

Not from the Pentagon.

[Tommy Duncan]

As for Calhoun and why he recalls Bush in May '72...

flyunderthebridge.blogspo...or-us.html (http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/09/some-grade-school-arithmetic-for-us.html)


Lt Bush first got permission, in May '72, to drill with the 9921st in Montgomery. Alabama, in a "Training Category G" status. With no pay. Service that wasn't disallowed by Denver until July 31st. Air Force Headquarters sent a copy of that rejection to Lt Bush c/o of the 9921st in Montgomery Alabama. Which would indicate he spent some time with that unit.

And that could explain John "Bill" Calhoun's persistent memories of seeing Bush on Dannelly AFB as early as May '72. I'm attempting to contact Mr. Calhoun to verify that, but a former pilot colleague of Geo. W. Bush's, with whom I am in regular contact, believes my theory is plausible.

After serving at Ellington in April, Lt Bush "cleared the base" in Houston in May 1972. There are no pay records for any service by Bush until that October, but there wouldn't be, because he wasn't drawing any pay.

Since the transfer was disallowed, he might not have been eligible to use any drills with the 9921st to accumulate points toward retirement, either. Hence, according to the records, it looks like he's simply missing. But that doesn't make sense, since several people he worked with on the Blount campaign remember talking about his ANG duty then with him.

Occam's Razor: Bush did pull duty in June and July with the 9921st, but didn't get credit for it because of AF regulations. When he found out, sometime in August, that he'd been wasting his time "drilling" with the 9921st, he first found a home with John Calhoun's 187th. Mailed the information to his Houston COs, September 5th, and they, in turn, authorized his service in Alabama anew in time for him to drill in October.

And that is a perfect fit with the official records. Keep in mind while studying those records that, U.S. NEWS is a "news magazine", in the same sense that Dan Rather is a reporter. A "drill" with the ANG Reserve is four hours not a full day. Thus, most week-ends earn the person 4 points toward a "good year". The records have Bush earning:

On Oct 28 and 29, 197............................ 4 points
On Nov 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1972............ 8 ppoints
On Jan 4,5, and 6, 1973.......................... 6 points
On Jan 8,9 and 10, ................................. 6 points

That's how Lt. Bush made up for the disallowed drills with the 9921st. By doing extra service with the 187th on Dannelly AFB. He needed 50 points by May 26, 1973, and he got 56 (with additional service in April and May, when his year ends).

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc6.gif

[Tommy Duncan]

Oops.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep13.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html)

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.

"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.

Newcomer drew an analogy with an art expert trying to determine whether a painting of unknown provenance was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. "If I was looking for a Da Vinci, I would look for characteristic brush strokes," he said. "If I found something that was painted with a modern synthetic brush, I would know that I have a forgery."

Meanwhile, Laura Bush became the first person from the White House to say the documents are likely forgeries. "You know they are probably altered," she told Radio Iowa in Des Moines yesterday. "And they probably are forgeries, and I think that's terrible, really."

Citing confidentiality issues, CBS News has declined to reveal the source of the disputed documents -- which have been in the network's possession for more than a month -- or to explain how they came to light after more than three decades. Yesterday, USA Today said that it had independently obtained copies of the documents "from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations" who declined to be named "for fear of retaliation."

It was unclear whether the same person supplied the documents to both media outlets. USA Today said it had obtained its copies of the CBS documents Wednesday night "soon after" the "60 Minutes" broadcast, as well as another two purported Killian memos that had not been made public.

A detailed examination of the CBS documents beside authenticated Killian memos and other documents generated by Bush's 147th Fighter Interceptor Group suggests at least three areas of difference that are difficult to reconcile:

• Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron."

In a CBS News broadcast Friday night rebutting allegations that the documents had been forged, Rather displayed an authenticated Bush document from 1968 that included a small "th" next to the numbers "111" as proof that Guard typewriters were capable of producing superscripts. In fact, say Newcomer and other experts, the document aired by CBS News does not contain a superscript, because the top of the "th" character is at the same level as the rest of the type. Superscripts rise above the level of the type.

• Factual problems. A CBS document purportedly from Killian ordering Bush to report for his annual physical, dated May 4, 1972, gives Bush's address as "5000 Longmont #8, Houston." This address was used for many years by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. National Guard documents suggest that the younger Bush stopped using that address in 1970 when he moved into an apartment, and did not use it again until late 1973 or 1974, when he moved to Cambridge, Mass., to attend Harvard Business School.

One CBS memo cites pressure allegedly being put on Killian by "Staudt," a reference to Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, one of Bush's early commanders. But the memo is dated Aug. 18, 1973, nearly a year and a half after Staudt retired from the Guard. Questioned about the discrepancy over the weekend, CBS officials said that Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard who exercised influence from behind the scenes even after his retirement.

• Stylistic differences. To outsiders, how an officer wrote his name and rank or referred to his military unit may seem arcane and unimportant. Within the military, however, such details are regulated by rules and tradition, and can be of great significance. The CBS memos contain several stylistic examples at odds with standard Guard procedures, as reflected in authenticated documents.

In memos previously released by the Pentagon or the White House, Killian signed his rank "Lt Col" or "Lt Colonel, TexANG," in a single line after his name without periods. In the CBS memos, the "Lt Colonel" is on the next line, sometimes with a period but without the customary reference to TexANG, for Texas Air National Guard.

An ex-Guard commander, retired Col. Bobby W. Hodges, who CBS originally cited as a key source in authenticating its documents, pointed to discrepancies in military abbreviations as evidence that the CBS memos are forgeries. The Guard, he said, never used the abbreviation "grp" for "group" or "OETR" for an officer evaluation review, as in the CBS documents. The correct terminology, he said, is "gp" and "OER."

In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.

Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.

On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather said "60 Minutes" had done a "content analysis" of the memos and found, for example, that the date that Bush was suspended from flying -- Aug. 1, 1972 -- matched information in the documents. He also noted that USA Today had separately obtained another memo from 1972 in which Killian asked to be updated on Bush's flight certification status.

CBS executives have pointed to Matley as their lead expert on whether the memos are genuine, and included him in a "CBS Evening News" defense of the story Friday. Matley said he spent five to eight hours examining the memos. "I knew I could not prove them authentic just from my expertise," he said. "I can't say either way from my expertise, the narrow, narrow little field of my expertise."

In looking at the photocopies, he said, "I really felt we could not definitively say which font this is." But, he said, "I didn't see anything that would definitively tell me these are not authentic."

Asked about Matley's comments, CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "In the end, the gist is that it's inconclusive. People are coming down on both sides, which is to be expected when you're dealing with copies of documents."

Questions about the CBS documents have grown to the point that they overshadow the allegations of favorable treatment toward Bush.

Prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh are insisting the documents are forged. New York Times columnist William Safire said yesterday that CBS should agree to an independent investigation. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, called on the network to apologize, saying: "The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it."


Staff reporters James V. Grimaldi and Mike Allen and researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.

[Tommy Duncan]

And I will close this evening with..........

WGAF?

[DeSPURado]

The author is mistaken for CBS relied on the memos it had in its possession when it ran its story last Wednesday, implying that it had them in its posession prior to "late Wednesday night."

Not from the Pentagon.

Why because it doesn't fit your beliefs? I'm sure they just made the "out of an abundance of caution" quote up too.

[Tommy Duncan]

You missed this:



www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep13.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html)

Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.

Try again.

L8rs.

[DeSPURado]

I don't see the contradiction with the original story. He authenticated it based upon the signature. A guy named strong authenticated the rest of it based upon the TANG equipment, what he knew about Killian (he knew the guy), and the policies at the time.


Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."

Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."


Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.

"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."

Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."

[DeSPURado]

Still don't have a responce for the pentagon releasing the document?


Late Wednesday night the White House released copies of the new memos to the Associated Press. Although the controversy over Bush's service has gone on for at least a decade, Pentagon officials said they found the memos only after performing an exhaustive search "out of an abundance of caution" in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the AP.

[DeSPURado]

And that could explain John "Bill" Calhoun's persistent memories of seeing Bush on Dannelly AFB as early as May '72. I'm attempting to contact Mr. Calhoun to verify that, but a former pilot colleague of Geo. W. Bush's, with whom I am in regular contact, believes my theory is plausible.


who is this guy? He can't even offer Calhoun to prove a theory?

[Tommy Duncan]

Fucker, go back and read the Kurtz article. Then shoot yourself in the head. You need it.

[DeSPURado]

Getting a littel mad are you?

CBS used him only to authenticate the signature in the original article. Go look at it yourself. They say the same thing. A guy named Strong did the rest who actually knew Killian.



The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

[Yonivore]

Let me get this straight...well, because I'm not going to read back.

DeSPURate, do you still believe the memos Dan Blather "revealed" last week are authentic? Just a yes or no will be sufficient.

[Tommy Duncan]

You missed the point. Again.

The Kurtz article explains that the CBS documents were not the ones which were released by the Pentagon this week through the FOIA request. Instead it says that CBS had the docs for a month and obtained them from an "individual." Probably Moore or Burkett, though Kurtz doesn't name them. If CBS obtained them through a Pentagon release then they would have stated that. Doing so would have lent a greater credibility to the story. Instead CBS continues to refuse to name the source for the docs. If they were really obtained through a FOIA request then there is really nothing to hide. If you believe in fucked up conspiracy theories well then the Bush administration can find out who obtained them regardless if CBS actually says they "came from the Pentagon" or not. More than likely it is Burkett. He is the one with an axe to grind and he is certainly one who 'is familiar with TANG operations' or whatever.

So there you have it. You were wrong.

As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.

Mad? Nah. Just tired of your lame arguments. I'm sure I am not the only one with that sentiment in this forum.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I can't figure out what's funnier...

That CBS continues to insist the docs are real.

OR

That Despurado spent ten fucking pages saying the same stupid shit over and over, and still came out looking like a chump in the end.

[DeSPURado]

As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.


Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers

By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.


Thats funny its an excerpt from the Kurtz article that you posted and keep claiming I don't understand. Its the first two freaking paragraphs. The horror the horror.

[DeSPURado]

I don't know whether they are authentic or not. No one has shown me any evidence to think they couldn't have been written in the 70s. If the order to report for a medical exam didn't exist, Why not? He missed it?

[travis2]

No one has shown me any evidence to think they couldn't have been written in the 70s.

Excuse me, but this entire thread has conclusively shown just that.

If you wish to believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, that's your right. It doesn't make them true.

But you'd be closer to the truth believing in them.

Face facts. CBS lied. CBS continues to lie. Your case is over.

[DeSPURado]

The technology clearly existed. Saying something can be made today on a word processor even easily is purely coincidental. It offers no proof to the matter, one would expect thirty years of technology to build on its history. Again, nothing has been shown to say that this is a fraud or isn't.

[travis2]

The technology only existed in an expensive piece of hardware the TxANG had NO chance of owning. Period.

Give it up.

Or is this just another lie from you?

[DeSPURado]

" The technology only existed" Thats all you have to say for it to be impossible for you to say conclusively that this is a fraud based upon a claim of technology. End of story. If you could even prove that the technology didn't exist on a single device that would be enough, but the truth is one device that cost 2-3k at the time (minus a few for the millitary bulk order.) was available for use. And could produce this document with relative ease.

Oh and I think you were lying about the 30 day make up credit thing. That applies to retirement, not to dischargees. There is a difference.

[travis2]

Look it up yourself, asshole. I gave you the citation. :flipoff

Your technological wonder existed NOWHERE in the military. Conclusively shown.

You're either lying or you really are this stupid.

[DeSPURado]

The citation you gave me applied to people applying for retirement, which has less stringent rules than someone applying for a discharge.


"Your technological wonder existed NOWHERE in the military. Conclusively shown."
- You're pulling that out of your ass. You can only say it was too expensive which means nothing.

[travis2]

There are no differences in the accounting methods. Now who's making things up?

[DeSPURado]

I have this from a close friend in the guard that there is a difference between how time is counted when you are retiring because of the period of time which it was intended to cover. Over a thirty year career its expected you might have lulls in service. But when it comes to a request for an honorble early discharge they apply a more strict accounting method.

[travis2]

Oh please...:rolleyes Cousin of a friend of the best man of a stepbrother of a...

Is that the best you can do?

Game, set, match.

[DeSPURado]

You don't refute it?

this is backed up in the USnews report by the way:

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

USnews (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm)

[travis2]

I already have with my original post. You're just making things up as you go along...I have legitimate sources.

As much as I enjoy knocking down your strawmen...I actually have a job to do. And I must go to it.

[DeSPURado]

US news isn't legit?

Again you're source wasn't sited. No link. It only reffered to people retiring. I don't know how you consider that to be proof. I can site a friend just as legitimately as you can an unreferenced quote.

[travis2]

a) You didn't have your article posted when I replied. I don't have time to read it now, have to go...I'll read it later.

b) my source: www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/p...362001.pdf (http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/pubfiles/36/362001.pdf)

[DeSPURado]

Your source specifically says for retirement purposes only. Thats not the same as an early discharge. It also talks about a 1 year limitation on that requirement as well, and a maximum of four make ups per year. I think I am right about this, and both of which were not what Bush did.


6.6. Equivalent Training (EQT). A member may be allowed to make up a UTA that was missed even if the UTA was
missed without prior approval. EQTs can be performed in a pay status for excused absences and in a non pay status
(retirement points only) for unexcused absences.

6.6.1. Commanders may allow individuals to make up a maximum of four missed UTA periods in a paid EQT status per
fiscal year [U.S.C. Title 37, Section 206(e)]. An EQT in a pay status must be performed within 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period and within the same fiscal year.

6.6.2. An EQT period without pay (for retirement points only) may be performed outside of 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period but within the member's anniversary year. UTAs performed in a non-pay status will
be documented on NGB Form 105m/s or a locally substituted form, held separately from attendance records for UTAs
in a pay status, and forwarded directly to MPF.

6.6.3. The training received during an EQT must be of similar nature and quality to that which was missed. EQT will
be appropriate to and enhance ability of the individual to accomplish the duties of the position to which he or she is
assigned. In the case of staff or support personnel, this may include actions to enhance the training, management, or
readiness of the unit.

[Tommy Duncan]

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=...ure_deaths (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040914/ap_on_re_us/manure_deaths)

Trial Begins for Farmer in Manure Deaths

Tue Sep 14,12:17 AM ET

By JULIANA BARBASSA, Associated Press Writer

MERCED, Calif. - The deaths of two dairy workers who were asphyxiated by gases rising from a fetid stew of cow manure could have been prevented if the farmer responsible for their safety had given them the proper training and equipment, prosecutors said Monday during opening statements in a case against the farmer.


Patrick Joseph Faria, from the small farming town of Gustine, has been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 2001 deaths of Enrique Araisa and Jose Alatorre.


Prosecutors said Faria failed his workers in a number of ways, including failing to warn the employees of the manure pit's danger and to train them on how to enter. They also said he gave them no equipment, no protection, and no way to test the air.


In a brief response to the prosecution, defense attorney Kirk McCallister said that the incident was clearly a tragedy, but the question jurors were being asked to answer was whether a crime was committed.


McCallister said that when the two men fell into the pit, "Mr. Faria was about 90 miles away, driving to San Francisco airport."


Alatorre, 24, was the first to squeeze through a narrow opening of the 40-foot pit to unclog a pipe. From the pitch-black bottom, he yelled up to two other worker, saying the air wasn't good. He tried to climb out, but was overcome by the toxic gases, fell into the liquid waste and drowned.


The wastewater "was inside his nose. He gulped it. It was inside his lungs," said prosecutor Gloria Mas.


Araisa, 29, scrambled down to help Alatorre, but as he neared the bottom, he lost consciousness and fell.


"They both died of asphyxiation," said Mas, quickly flashing the gruesome images of the men's bodies on a large screen before the jurors.


Mas argued that Faria, who as a volunteer firefighter had been trained in the particular dangers posed by confined areas, knew that hydrogen sulfide, a gas frequently found in underground spaces, could be deadly.


The farm's Injury and Illness Prevention Plan specifically mentioned the manure pit as an area of concern and Faria as the safety manager on site, Mas said.


"Mr. Faria was supposed to protect these individuals, and he didn't," said Mas.

[Tommy Duncan]

CBS represented Matley as an expert who authenticated those documents originally. So my point still stands. And again, as the Kurtz article pointed out, the CBS memos did not come from the Pentagon. If they did CBS most certainly at this point would have stated that in order to cover their ass.


You missed the point. Again.

The Kurtz article explains that the CBS documents were not the ones which were released by the Pentagon this week through the FOIA request. Instead it says that CBS had the docs for a month and obtained them from an "individual." Probably Moore or Burkett, though Kurtz doesn't name them. If CBS obtained them through a Pentagon release then they would have stated that. Doing so would have lent a greater credibility to the story. Instead CBS continues to refuse to name the source for the docs. If they were really obtained through a FOIA request then there is really nothing to hide. If you believe in fucked up conspiracy theories well then the Bush administration can find out who obtained them regardless if CBS actually says they "came from the Pentagon" or not. More than likely it is Burkett. He is the one with an axe to grind and he is certainly one who 'is familiar with TANG operations' or whatever.

So there you have it. You were wrong.

As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.

Mad? Nah. Just tired of your lame arguments. I'm sure I am not the only one with that sentiment in this forum.

[Tommy Duncan]

www.splendoroftruth.com/c...005093.php (http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/005093.php)

MS Forger

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/msforger.jpg

Introducing a new product in our Office line called Microsoft Forger. We have been copying other peoples software ideas for years, so who is better to provide you with a product that imitates other peoples style and signature. Microsoft Forger is the ultimate product for pundit-proof forgery.

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/guardoc.jpg

Even if you are just getting into forgery or are an old hand, this product will deliver all the power that you need to turn out credible documents with little or no effort.

Just look at some of the incredible features included.

Output machine selection - Select from a variety of emulators for everything from manual typewriters, IBM Selectrics, early model word processors such as Wang and many others.

Font selection - Once you have selected the machine type, font selection is limited to only those fonts actually available for that machine. No longer will you make stupid mistakes like selecting Times New Roman for memorandum that were suppose to be typed on a IBM Selectric.

Proportional fonts and kerning - Again options are limited by machine type

Key emulation - Only those keys actually on the selected machine type are activated. Special features such as subscript and superscript will appear only as that machine would have outputted it. Some extremely amateur forgers have actually used features such as reduced font sized superscript "th" in documents that were suppose to have been from a normal typewriter. Our product will prevent such simple mistakes.

Copy machine emulation - Before you print out your document you can have it automatically appear to have been run through a copy or fax machine multiple times. Lettering will look aged and blurred with random specks according to our specialized algorithm.

Margins and document centering - Each document created is slightly different to account for the non-exact centering of manual machines and the variance of paper feeds. Nobody will be able to overlay your forgery with his own created forgery and have them exactly line up.

Correction emulation - If your output type is for a device such as a typewriter you also need proper correction emulation since these documents were rarely perfect. Special effects such as type over, white out smudges, or coffee stains can be selectively applied.

Signature scanning - Scan in a signature from a record in the pubic domain and MS Forger will automatically store it in a vector signature file for use in adding to your document. The signature scanner will remove artifacts such as lettering found underneath the signature scan.

Add-Ons - There are many specialized add-ons that can be used depending on your document forgery needs. For a limited time only when you buy Microsoft Forger we will include the Texas National Guard Memorandum (TNGM) add-on for free.

Here are just some of the features of the TNGM add-on.

Military style dates. Date headers are automatically formatted to day - capitalized three letter month - two digit year.
Subject lines. Automatically uppercased as this is the standard for military memorandums.

Rank selector. Select from the service and the rank for the individual who you are forging. This is especially helpful for those who the closes they have been to the military is when they protested outside the gate. Prevents mistakes in the abbreviations used in military rank.

Unit selector. Select from a list of guard units with the option to use their letterhead.

Command database. Our command database includes all officers and the times they served in the Texas National

Guard. The selections are limited to the date used at the top of the memorandum. This ensures you won't have the document addressed to someone that had retired a year and a half before your document date.

Accreditation - Our documents have been accredited as undetectable by the National Organization of Forensic Document Examiners. And we are just not talking CBS's hired experts, but ones that can actually detect forged documents.

So if you are a Kerry campaign operative or a CBS intern then this is the program for you.

[Yonivore]

"The technology clearly existed."
Actually, DeSPURate, they've tried to reproduce the memos with the technology that "clearly" existed at the time. Guess what, nothing comes close to the reproduction quality of Microsoft Word 2002. Not even close.

Not the IBM Selectric Composer. Not the IBM Executive.

What I want to know is this; when Dan Rather confesses to the ruse and resigns, will you still be maintaining these are authentic documents? That's the real question.

[Tommy Duncan]

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


Kurtz puts this to rest (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html)



"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer (http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm), author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.


But...but...but...put together a thousand monkeys and a thousand Selectrics at Ellington AFB back in 1972 and you could potentially end up with those memos.

Game over. (For those of us in reality).

[Joe Chalupa]

:sleep

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What do typographic experts at Adobe, etc. know?

Some liberal flunky on an internet bulletin board sez it's legit, so it must be.

:shootme

[Nbadan]

match ya expert for expert...


Richard Katz, a computer software expert in Los Angeles who was featured on the "Evening News" segment, said in an interview that he had called his local affiliate, KCBS, after looking at the memos on the CBS Web site after the initial broadcast, when some experts were saying that the memos looked as if they had been composed using the Times New Roman font in Microsoft Word.

Comparing the CBS memos with a replication produced on Microsoft Word, he noticed a slight variation in the boldness of the letters, as there is on many typewritten documents. "It doesn't look like you can do this very easily," he said. "If you use something like Photoshop you could come close to faking it, but why not just go out and buy a Selectric for $75?"

Bill Glennon, a technology consultant and I.B.M. typewriter specialist who had posted his thoughts on the memos on a blog and was quoted over the weekend in publications including The New York Times, said CBS called him Monday morning. The producer asked him to come in and look at the memorandums and say whether he thought that an I.B.M. typewriter could have produced the documents. He said he was initially leery of talking. "Because quite honestly there's some people out there, they're scary," he said. "You don't agree with them, you offer opinions that don't jibe with theirs and you get a target on your back."

Mr. Glennon was in charge of service for 1,000 contracts for I.B.M. typewriters for 15 years, starting in late 1972, around the time the memorandums were produced. He spent 15 minutes with the CBS documents, he said, and believes that they could have been created using the kind of typewriters he worked with at I.B.M.

n.y. times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14guard.html)

Target on your back, gez, no wonder so many experts are coming out agreeing with the Bush Junta.

[Tommy Duncan]

:lol

Oh good, the typewriter repairman. Glennon was addressed in Kurtz's article:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...p13_2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13_2.html)


In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.

Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.



The "experts" who are vouching for the authenticity of the documents are few and far between and have Rather dubious credentials. It takes a bit more than that to prove those documents are authentic. All CBS and Rather can claim that it is possible that such documents could have been created which of course is a very weak position to argue from.

Rather and CBS have not "matched" the experts who have stated that the documents are or are highly likely forgeries.

But go ahead and continue to argue. This thread is destined to be a classic...at your expense.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So a guy who looks at a document, and says he believes it could be legit trumps countless people who have actually physically tried to reproduce the document with the same technology?

He also trumps the fact that a MS Word document superimposed on the document matches up identically?

Ooooooooookay.

[Spurminator]

I would tend to question the objectivity of someone who claims that there could be goons out to get him if he vouches for the authenticity of the documents... But maybe that's just me.

[Tommy Duncan]

It shouldn't be too hard for CBS to procure some old IBM typewriters and have Glennon prove it could be done.

Actually, it has already been attempted:

shapeofdays.typepad.com/t...lectr.html (http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html)

[Yonivore]

http://instapundit.com/images/bleatban2sm.jpg

[DeSPURado]

So there you have it. You were wrong.

As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.

Mad? Nah. Just tired of your lame arguments. I'm sure I am not the only one with that sentiment in this forum.

It was from your own damn article Tommy. The quote with no link was your article you posted it. So much for you ever reading what you yourself post.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh good, the gift that keeps on giving.

[DeSPURado]

So you acknowledge that you are wrong?

[Yonivore]

Okay, I've missed it if you answered.

DeSPURate, do you believe the CBS memos are forged or not? Yes or no?

I gotta know, it's gnawing at me.

[Tommy Duncan]

I'm not wrong. When will you ever fucking admit that you were?

Never, no doubt.

[DeSPURado]

Yoinvore- I don't know whether they are authentic or not. No one has shown me any evidence to think they couldn't have been written in the 70s. If the order to report for a medical exam didn't exist, Why not? He missed it?

Tommy you've been screaming at me for not reading the Kurtz article which specifically said exactly like the CBS original press release that they used Matley to verify only the signature. I am not saying you were wrong about everything. But you were wrong about the nature of how Matley was used. A guy named Strong who knew Killian was used to verify everything else.

[Yonivore]

It's a simple question.

Given what you know now, do you believe the CBS memos are authentic or, do you believe they are forged? Don't be so Kerryesque...surely you have a gut feeling, one way or the other.

[Tommy Duncan]

CBS had Matley on as the man who authenticated the documents last Friday.

[DeSPURado]

And this is CBS's original press release.


Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.

Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.

"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."

Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.

Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."


Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.

"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."

Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.

"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discord

CBSnews (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml)

[Tommy Duncan]

Read the first line of what you quoted:


Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real.

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry, DeSPURate, was that a yes or a no? Authentic or Forged?

[DeSPURado]

Yonivore I gave you my honest answer. I have said it multiple times. And I can honestly say, I don't know. Its pretty easy to say that they could make it today, but that should be obvious. Any technology is expected to get better. All I know is that it looks like it would only take one machine to produce this in the early 70s. If it took more than 1 I would believe you that this was a fake, but as long as it could have been done with 1 machine. It isn't hard for me to imagine them being real. Documents such as these should exist. They are supposed to exist, at least the order to report for a medical exam.

[Yonivore]

Then why are you defending CBS so vehemently. If you're truly undecided, you'd at least be mulling over the possibility they are faked.

Particularly in light of the overwhelming number of REAL experts that are lining up again Dan Rather, his handful of experts, and you.

Seriously, a person who didn't know one way or the other would probably keep their mouth shut and let the two opposing sides argue it out...but, no, you -- he who is uncertain -- has an opinion and, it's an opinion that consistently comes down on the side of demonstrating the memos to be authentic.

And, about this one machine theory of your's.

They've yet to reproduce a reasonable facsimile with either a IBM Selectric Composer or an IBM Executive typewriter. Microsoft Word 2002 has come closer than any other method to reproducing the memos CBS is showing.

Also, how do you explain that every KNOWN document authored by Killian appears to have been produced with a standard typewriter?

Please, you're as bad as Dan Rather and you don't have any skin in the game.

[DeSPURado]

My argument is this shit that they have been disproven, which I am absolutely certain they have not.

[Tommy Duncan]

Whoa. He's babbling now.

[DeSPURado]

You call a one sentence reply babbling?

[Yonivore]

"My argument is this shit that they have been disproven, which I am absolutely certain they have not."
I certainly think a vast preponderance (<< legal term for ya, counselor) of the information we now know about the memos combined with the closed-handedness of CBS, (not identifying the source of the documents, trying to sequester their experts, pointing to possible capable devices while refusing to, themselves, test or attempt reproduction with the Composer or Executive, deflecting the blame), points to an almost certainty the documents are fake.

His handwriting expert has already stated it is impossible to determine the provenance of the document and, even though he is satisfied the signature is Killian's cannot be certain the signature wasn't imaged and reproduced for the CBS Documents.

Fact of the matter is, DeSPURate (and you know this, being a counselor-in-training and all) the memos should have never been aired. CBS failed to do due diligence in securing authenticity. Period, end of story...they never should have aired. And, that being the case, CBS is under the gun to prove they are real -- not the other way around.

Put the shoe on the other foot for a second. I could (now knowing where CBS fucked up) reproduce some pretty damning documents about John Kerry, feed them to a sympathetic news source and demand the rest of the world disprove them.

[DeSPURado]

do due diligence

Funny wording.


They shouldn't have been aired with the confidence that they were aboslutely legitimate. They should have been aired saying that they were still working to ascertain whether they are legitimate or not. But the experts they have spoken to so far have given them the nod on them.

No journalist should ever have to give up a source-
Sincerely Robert Novak.

[Yonivore]

I disagree. No reputable news program would have aired the documents unless they were 100% certain they were authentic. Period.

If these turn out to be fake, and they apparently have, it will be the end of Rather's career. If these turn out to have been sourced by the DNC or Kerry campaign, it will be the end of the Kerry campaign for the presidency. It's that simple and they know it. That's why Dan Rather is so vehemently defending his story while refusing to source the material.

CBS isn't supposed to be the National Inquirer or Weekly World News, is it?

Rushing the memos to air reeks of partisan political bias.

[DeSPURado]

The problem again is that these memos should be real. Some of them anyways should exist. Their absense from the Bush documents lends credibility to finding what they found.

[Nbadan]

could (now knowing where CBS fucked up) reproduce some pretty damning documents about John Kerry, feed them to a sympathetic news source and demand the rest of the world disprove them.

This is no different that the Swift Boat fiasco, only these documents are based on the truth and the Swift boat allegations were based on a boat full of lies. The Republican't decrying the Democrats underhanded techinque is so full of Irony you can almost see them want to bust out laughing when they are doing live interviews.

[Yonivore]

"The problem again is that these memos should be real. Some of them anyways should exist. Their absense from the Bush documents lends credibility to finding what they found."
So, if you can't find what you think should be in the record, you just make it up or, worse, accept some flimsy forgeries to stand in their stead?

And, speaking of "missing" documents, why did the online media have to FOIA request the after action report from the Navy on John Kerry shooting a fleeing VC in the back? I thought Kerry had made all his records available?

President Bush has authorized the release of all his military records. It's not his fault the military can't keep up with records from 30 years ago. I'd be surprised if any files from Guard units are complete from 30 years ago.

"This is no different that the Swift Boat fiasco, only these documents are based on the truth and the Swift boat allegations were based on a boat full of lies. The Republican't decrying the Democrats underhanded techinque is so full of Irony you can almost see them want to bust out laughing when they are doing live interviews."
Well, without getting into the veracity of either story, there's a huge difference, Nbadanallah.

The forged documents are being presented by a national news organization as being authentic.

The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have paid for all the exposure they've gotten. Katie Couric booked Kitty Kelley for three straight mornings this week. Did you know there hasn't been one Swiftee interviewed by the CBS, NBC, or ABC? 60 Minutes has run stories on Richard Clarke (and his book) on Joe Wilson (and his book) and now the memos...without even a passing mention of the Swifties. I even think this is the 2nd 60 minutes report on Bush's Guard service.

[DeSPURado]

Lets put it this way if Bush had been honest about his records. nobody would have questioned him. The truth was there was something to hide, as my discussion with Travis revealed, Bush did not fulfill his obligations. He never met his service contract. Bush had something to hide and is still hiding something. I mean what is Bush's track record on his millitary record. I have released them all. No now I have released them all. Each one he reveals ties him into more troubling consequences. Rumours are born that way Yonivore.

[xrayzebra]

:spam :spam :spam :spam

Give it up, it didn't stick the first time, the second time and
how many times. Bush got an Honorable Discharge, on time,
his Dad was a Congressman, he got some perks, so what!

Old News, nothing new.....Rather screwed up and you know
it and he knows it and the whole world knows it.:next3

[DeSPURado]

Ironic you think getting a dishonorable discharge is the same as earning one.

[Yonivore]

"Lets put it this way if Bush had been honest about his records."
When was he dishonest about his records?

Oh, and could you please scan and post your employment records from 30 years ago, please? I'm sure they're right there in front of you...

Why is it you think Republicans have to answer every allegation that's tossed out and Demoncrats are to be exempt?

[DeSPURado]

Gee let me think of a few....Hmm maybe the trillion times saying he released them all already.

[Yonivore]

He's released all he knows about. He's authorized the military to release all they have. That's not dishonest.

And, since then, the only thing that's surfaced are forgeries...

[DeSPURado]

"And, since then, the only thing that's surfaced are forgeries..."

You know thats not true. And Bush should know and acknowledge that things are missing from the release like his flight logs. Its dishonest to say otherwise.

[Yonivore]

Who would have his flight logs?

And, what documents have been released, by the White House, since he authorized full disclosure.

[Tommy Duncan]

...and on and on it goes.

What are the odds that some allegedly 30 year old documents which specifically address what has yet to have been proven about Bush appear from out of nowhere and match up with the default settings of MS Word as well as contain various inconsistencies in content and are authentic?

If you want to claw your way back to reality, reflect on that question for a minute.

This doesn't pass the smell test, which is why these documents are regarded as extremely likely forgeries by most. Well, except CBS and of course they don't have an incentive to avoid admitting that they've used forged documents to attack a presidential candidate, now do they?