Reply With QuoteThe 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.
SFGateLate 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.
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.
As for Calhoun and why he recalls Bush in May '72...
flyunderthebridge.blogspo...or-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 ac ulate 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).
Oops.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep13.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 do ents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a do ent 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 do ents 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 do ents are authentic."
A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated do ents 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 do ents. 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 do ents 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 do ents 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 do ents -- 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 do ents "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 do ents to both media outlets. USA Today said it had obtained its copies of the CBS do ents 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 do ents beside authenticated Killian memos and other do ents 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 do ents. 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 do ents had been forged, Rather displayed an authenticated Bush do ent 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 do ent 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 do ent 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 do ents 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 do ents.
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 do ents, 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 do ents. 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 do ents.
Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a do ent 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 do ents 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 do ents. 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 do ents."
Questions about the CBS do ents have grown to the point that they overshadow the allegations of favorable treatment toward Bush.
Prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh are insisting the do ents 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.
And I will close this evening with..........
WGAF?
Why because it doesn't fit your beliefs? I'm sure they just made the "out of an abundance of caution" quote up too.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.
You missed this:
Try again.www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep13.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 do ents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a do ent 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 do ents 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 do ents are authentic."
A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated do ents 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 do ents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.
L8rs.
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.
Do ent and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the do ents 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 do ents, because deterioration occurs each time a do ent is reproduced. And the do ents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the do ents CBS started with.
Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the do ents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known do ents 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 do ents 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 do ents. And paper work, like these do ents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the do ents 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 do ents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."
Still don't have a responce for the pentagon releasing the do ent?
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.
who is this guy? He can't even offer Calhoun to prove a theory?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.
er, go back and read the Kurtz article. Then shoot yourself in the head. You need it.
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 do ents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a do ent 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.
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.
You missed the point. Again.
The Kurtz article explains that the CBS do ents 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 ed 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.
I can't figure out what's funnier...
That CBS continues to insist the docs are real.
OR
That Despurado spent ten ing pages saying the same stupid over and over, and still came out looking like a chump in the end.
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.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.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 do ents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a do ent 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.
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?
Excuse me, but this entire thread has conclusively shown just that.No one has shown me any evidence to think they couldn't have been written in the 70s.
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.
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.
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?
" 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 do ent 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.
Look it up yourself, asshole. I gave you the citation.
Your technological wonder existed NOWHERE in the military. Conclusively shown.
You're either lying or you really are this stupid.
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.
There are no differences in the accounting methods. Now who's making things up?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions