| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/9/13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, ERROR, uid:33505, category id '18005#7.99559' has no name! , ] UID:33505 Activity:nil |
9/13 At least one of the memos is MS Word generated. Look here:
http://csua.org/u/90r (blog, and downloadable Word doc)
You will find the Word doc was created using all the default settings,
with word wrapping occurring precisely where they do in the CBS News
documents. Don't be a dumb liberal. -smart liberal
\_ Don't be a tool:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603
At least one of them could not have been generated by
a computer, with the funny "e"s moving up and
down the middle of various words. -real liberal, not fake "liberal"
\_ You need to acknowledge that at least one document (the one
discussed in the URL) is probably fake.
\_ In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or
below the baseline. For example, in the original document,
lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the
baseline. Look at the word "interference", or even "me".
Typewriters do this; computers don't. Granted, if you are
comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high
with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high,
you're not going to see such subtleties. That doesn't prove the
differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for
making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they
almost match!"
\_ Are you saying that the specific memo talked about in the URL
is not fake?
\_ That is correct. If you create a document using a font
with a typewriter and then reproduce it 30 years later
using a computer, they should look very much alike.
That is the whole point of having a font.
\_ I will only believe this if someone can come up with
a 1972 typewriter that outputs MS Word Times New Roman 12pt
exactly as in 19-May-1972.doc.
Please provide URL when you find evidence of this, and
exactly this.
Or ... if you can find a verified National Guard-related
document also from 1972 that shows the same style as
19-May-1972.doc. |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/90r -> littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12554_Another_Document_Experiment-_19_May_1972 february 2001 support lgf You don't have to pay to read LGF. But if you enjoy what we're doing here and you'd like to show your appreciation, you can use the Amazon or PayPal links below to drop some change in our tip jar and help us buy some groceries. Please help keep Little Green Footballs bouncing by donating whatever you can! We do this without pay, so the more donations, the more time we can afford to devote to LGF. Thanks for your support, and for helping make LGF a success. next entry: CBS Docs: Bush Working on Nonexistent Campaign? Several readers mentioned the "19 May 1972" document as a particularly striking example; so I typed this document into Microsoft Word as well, again with default margins and tab stops... and once again, the character spacing, line spacing, line breaks (and remember, any 1972 typewriter would have had a manual or manually triggered carriage return), and letter forms in my MS Word document exactly match the CBS News "original." There are so many points of correspondence between these two versions that anyone arguing the CBS "original" could have been created with anything but MS Word is either: 1) dishonest, or 2) ignorant. It's very telling that the automatically word-wrapped MS Word version exactly matches the line breaks in the CBS "original" for 11 lines, with not a single discrepancy. If you look closely at the CBS "original" you can see that there's quite a bit of distortion and shearing, probably caused by whatever technique was used to artificially "age" the document. So the overlay technique is not as effective with this one; but if you overlay them and nudge one of them by single pixels from side to side, words and lines come into exact focus in different parts of the image. email this article replies: 114 comments Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs. Free Speech Is Only For ber-Libs 9/11/2004 06:58PM PST Never mind that you can just imagine the little Bush hating fascist sitting there, in front of his computer, making this crap up. I also hope Mr Streisand gets the nod for his performance as Reagan: it was inspiring. Not since his acting in Amityville Horror has he been so "on". Granted, the flies stole the show (and to be fair, they were just phoning it in), but still... Now, as the crack wears off, I think this drags out a couple weeks and Dan retires amidst cries of censorship and vast right wing - the word escapes me. Please Don Vito - make these men pay for what they have done. Elcid 9/11/2004 06:59PM PST Ummmm, people it's wonderful to win a BATTLE, but the war goes on. Slow-Motion Train Wreck We noted earlier that the Boston Globe cited Dr. Philip Bouffard as its prime source for the claim that the forged CBS documents were created on a typewriter, but that Dr. Bouffard has now complained that the Boston Globe misquoted him and that in fact, "There are all kinds of things that say that this is not a typewriter." "Now, unbelievably, CBS News is relying on the Globe's misquotation of Dr. Bouffard to shore up their own untenable claims of the documents' authenticity! I guess I'm beyond being shocked by anything CBS News does, but they must have known that Bouffard has complained about the Globe's misuse of his name." "This is, of course, a sign of CBS's desperation, but it is revealing in this respect: CBS claims to have thoroughly investigated and validated the documents before they ran their story. Bobby Hodges, has said that he was lied to by CBS News and that in fact, he things the documents are forgeries. Notwithstanding their supposed investigation, CBS is so hard up for ammunition to support their position that they have to repeat an already-exposed lie by the Globe." At least three Pentagon sources believe the documents about President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard are fakes. I'm not as optimistic as many bloggers that just because we won the argument, we'll win the war. This story is one more thing that will damage President Bush unless the administration moves aggressively to counter it, and demonstrate to the majority of Americans--not just the news junkies--that CBS News has perpetrated a fraud of astonishing proportions in an effort to influence the election. But USA today had 2 new memos out and one of them had the centered text but this time with the superscript th. as shape of days pointed out, on a typewriter with proportionally spaced fonts, centering text is exceptionally hard but the precious memos were all dead on perfectly centered. THe left avoided that argument by saying it was possible that they ordered that letterhead previously and were just using it for all of them or that Killian may have taken the time to center it perfectly then just xeroxed a bunch of copies to use over and over. But on the new june 24th memo the heading is different because of that superscript th. Any chance we could get you to do a new overlay using that new header on the June 24th memo? We just need to tackle these lefty talking points one at a time. Because the SBVT came out with it attacks on Kerry's combat record, and it was hurting Kerry badly. Clinton gave Kerry good advice on dropping his Nam service record. My guess is someone in one of the 527's came up with the forgeries and then gave them to the DNC or Kerry. It might be that at the highest levels of the DNC or Kerry's campaign are clueless about the document. CBS groupthink mentality refused to properly vet the document, so now we have obviously forged documents that CBS cannot release the source because of the connection to the DNC or Kerry. After the savage investigation against the SBVT, this forgery is the smoking gun of active collusion between the Democrats and CBS. They have shot themselves in the foot, and are now in denial. The military used the date format: DD MMM YY when I worked with them up to the 90's. That was something that caught my eye in CBS's docs: they spelled out August in one place and they put a comma after the month in another. RadioMattM 9/11/2004 07:11PM PST #9 killbuckner IIRC, copy machines in 1972-73 used thermal paper. Plain paper copiers were not common until the late '70's. In other words, I find it unlikely that the CO would have typed up a perfectly-centered leterhead, then copied it. Not only would it have looked like hell at the time, it would look even worse now. I'll have to research to see what I can find ojn the subject. Lysander 9/11/2004 07:12PM PST I wonder how many people from Can't Believe Sh*t have their resumes out there now, because they know it's going down like a hulled ship? What are the odds, statisticly, that a random memo typed by a random typist on a typewriter will be word-wrapped exactly like the default automatic word-wrapping function of Microsoft Word? I wonder if expert is statistics can quantify the odds and maybe demonstate that the posibility of these memos not originating from MS Word is very improbable. Belize042 9/11/2004 07:15PM PST #13 Lewis Actually, I'd probably open the trusty Yellow Pages to the "typewriters" section, make some calls, and buy me a freakin' typewriter. " If it's created with an inkjet or laser printer, you can't deliver the original document, or the game is up before it begins. Let's vote Dan Blather as "Grand Master Idiotarian 2004" in honor of this tremendous and quite public, meltdown of a LLL's career. He either thinks America is this stupid, short-memoried or apathetic or he can't mentally digest the facts. If you have not seen it I would state that it is a must see. Three documents out of six are now fully proven to be fakes for a host of reasons. Current odds: 2049872308937390829083209327098327923671 7893758972345761344751987341509817234789 0172347512348975123498751234761456761612 3867923715604961472342346851019238548234 googolplexed to 1 that any of the others will be legit. What a joy to be watching the Main Stream Media body-slammed to the mat. And then get up and asked to be pounded again, and again. After years of suffering through the Media's Liberal bias without any real re... |
| www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603 Hunter Fri Sep 10th, 2004 at 15:37:04 GMT (From the diaries -- kos) Against my own better judgment, but because I believe that the more rapidly charges are countered, the better, I spend a goodly portion of the last day researching -- shudder -- typewriters of the '60s and '70s. PowerLine, a site linked to with admiration by such luminaries as Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt -- discovered that if you used the same typeface, you could make documents that looked almost -- but not exactly -- like the TANG documents discovered by CBS News. This qualifies as big news, of course, so from those two sites, the story has spread into the mainstream media through the usual channels, most notably Drudge, NRO, etc. I do not believe there is any truly "new" information here, but I hope to condense it in one easy-to-digest reference. So here are some point-by-point findings re: the "forgeries". As he says: Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word's defaults; First, of course, in order to do this, he first had to reduce the document so that the margins were the same, since the original PDF distributed by CBS is quite a bit larger. Then he superimposed the two documents, such that the margins on all sides lined up. What he then discovered is that Times New Roman typeface is, when viewed on a computer monitor, really, really similar to Times New Roman typeface. Or rather, really really similar to a typeface that is similar to Times New Roman typeface. You see, a "typeface" doesn't just consist of the shape of the letters. It also is a set of rules about the size of the letters in different point sizes, the width of those letters, and the spacing between them. These are all designed in as part of the font, by the designer. Since Microsoft Word was designed to include popular and very-long-used typefaces, it is hardly a surprise that those typefaces, in Microsoft Word, would look similar to, er, themselves, on a typewriter or other publishing device. You could use the same typeface in, for example, OpenOffice, and if it's the same font, surprise-surprise, it will look the same. If you shrink each document to be approximately 400-500 pixels across, they do indeed look strikingly similar. But that is because you are compressing the information they contain to 400-500 pixels across. At that size, subtle differences in typeface or letter placement simply cannot be detected; If you compare the two documents at a larger size, the differences between them are much more striking. For instance: In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or below the baseline. For example, in the original document, lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the baseline. Granted, if you are comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high, you're not going to see such subtleties. it just proves you're an idiot, for making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they almost match!" "This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s." First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces. And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... "Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters" That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout. "This document uses proportional spacing, which didn't exist in the early 1970s." It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies. "OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one." The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular. There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. they apparently were manufactured in a range of configurations, and with different available typefaces. Note that these were not "typeball" machines, like the Selectrics; IBM had what we will call a "close" relationship with Times New Roman: Courier was originally designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler for the revolutionary "golfball" typing head technology IBM was then developing for its electric typewriters. In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices. Consequently, when Apple introduced its first Macintosh computer in 1984 it anachronistically included Courier among its core fonts. In the early 1990s Microsoft, locked in a font format battle with Adobe, hired Monotype Typography to design a series of core fonts for Windows 31, many of which were intended to mirror those in the Apple core font group. Thus, New Courier--lighter and crisper than Courier--was born. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. And, as we said before, typeface includes not just the "shape" of the letters, but the size and spacing between those letters. One of the differences between the Times New Roman as implemented on the IBM machines, as opposed to Microsoft Word? The IBM machines apparently had the alternative '4' character that matched these memos, while Microsoft Word's TNR does not. Now, would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron have extravagantly purchased typewriters that contained the th superscript key? Would the military want or require typewriters with the 'th', 'nd', and 'rd' characters? I'll leave that to the enterprising among you to deduce. This is not the final word on this, and it is certainly possible that any documents are forgeries. But the principle argument of the freepers -- that it would be impossible for a TANG office in 1972 to produce documents that look like these -- is simply false. Within a few days, however, we should know for sure either way; these typewriters still have a following, and type samples should be forthcoming. kj's diary just after this one, for evidence on the IBM Selectric Composer, first marketed in 1966. This machine definitively had all the features necessary to produce these documents. Because it was apparently very expensive and difficult to use, the argument is that a TANG office would never have had one. Nonetheless, it strikes down the theory that a 60s-70s era machine could not have produced these docs. Roman" typefaces in the 80s-90s specifically to more accurately match the original design of Times New Roman: When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on scree... |