Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
News

Journal pudge's Journal: Forgeries 27

Journal by pudge

I am convinced the memos are forgeries. There's a negligible possibility they are not, sorta like the chance monkeys might fly out my butt. Feel free to read yet another in a long list of analyses that show how unreasonable it is to think these are not forgeries.

Here's a quick summary, for those not paying much attention: CBS did a story last week, in which they had some memos from a man named Killian, who died in 1984.

An overwhelming number of experts have offered strong testimony that the typography of the documents is inconsistent with what was available in 1972 and 1973.

CBS said experts verified them, but produced only one expert, who at CBS' request is not answering questions from anyone else, who could verify the signature belonged to Killian, and who could not verify they were originally affixed to the actual document in question, since CBS has only a photocopy.

One other expert came forward, but he only testified what was already essentially conceded, and is irrelevant: that typewriters did exist that could print a "th" superscript and use proportional spacing (which is essentially the only rebuttal CBS has offered to the tyopgraphical evidence, as well). So far, no other experts have come forward supporting the authenticity of the documents.

CBS produced two men who were apparently there, but both testified only that the contents of the memos reflected what Killian thought, not that they were authentic documents. One of the men never saw the documents, and upon seeing them, said he thought they were forgeries.

CBS interviewed members of Killian's family who said they were not authentic, but did not mention this in their report.

CBS has so far refused to give people access to their copies of the documents, or say where they got them.

In their followups, CBS has misrepresented experts who believe the documents are probably fake, and have refused to address all of the most important evidence against their authenticity.

There's more, but these are some of the main points.

My sincere hope is that this causes Americans to stop caring about who did what in Vietnam, but even more, to be much more critical of what the news media (and web sites) claim. Oh, and I hope some editorial staff at CBS and the Boston Globe (who was also misrepresenting the experts, and had their own parallel story about Bush's service record) lose their job over the stonewalling and misrepresentations.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Forgeries More

Forgeries

Comments Filter:
  • As hyper-partisan as US politics have been, I'm still amazed at the willingness of the Democrats, the left and the media to blindly leap to CBS' defense on this one. Is this going to be the next level of sleaze to be legitimized -- forging documents (badly) and then ignoring any objections? What are we now, Malaysia? Egypt?
  • It has yet to be seen. I am taking a wait and see approach. I think CBS should turn over the documents and do its damn best to get provenance on them.

    The fact that there are technologies that could have produced those script letters and the "th" symbol, leave open the possibility that they are not forgeries. My mother has worked as a secretary/administrative assistant in the military for years... with all the brigades and platoons about with "th" and "st" as part of their designations, it is quite possi
    • The funny thing about this is that I would have expected pudge to say this as he generally calls for waiting until all the facts are in.

      I waited several days for CBS to respond. They added they did not have originals and they have yet to offer to release the supposedly better copies they do have. They have lied and stonewalled. They have rejected the benefit of the doubt I had been offering.

      What's more, the evidence against is entirely overwhelming.

      I can make a document that looks almost exactly the
    • Some interesting information (and exactly my point are contained in this PC Magazine article):
      http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.a s p [pcmag.com]

      This, albeit partisan, analysis (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/160 3 [dailykos.com]
      does a lot expand on the, possibly corrupting, methods that places like LittleGreenFootballs [littlegreenfootballs.com] (another partisan take) used to "prove" the forgery status.

      I'm still waiting for a definitive word. The PC Mag article reflects my sentiments exactly.

      • It appears that one of the early proponents that the documents were "most certainly forged" seems to be backing down. [boston.com]

        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 com

        • No. You've been unfortunately duped by the lies of the Globe. I am not using hyperbole here. Read the straight dope from Bouffard on INDC Journal [indcjournal.com], where he was first interviewed, where he has complained about the Globe's misrepresenting him, etc.

          The Globe has been almost as bad as CBS in all of this.
          • http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000916.php [indcjournal.com]

            It seems like your guy is grasping. Even in the original quote, Bouffard never said that the documents were authentic. He just backed out of his original statement that said it was impossible for those documents to have been created during the time they "supposedly" were.

            That was my point. The documents aren't proven forgeries or authentic, yet. And all the "proof" that they are forgeries appears to be a bunch of people monkeying with their word processo

            • It seems like your guy is grasping. Even in the original quote, Bouffard never said that the documents were authentic. He just backed out of his original statement that said it was impossible for those documents to have been created during the time they "supposedly" were.

              Bouffard did not back down, he just said he could not be absolutely sure, which is what he said originally. Bouffard never said it was impossible. He said all along it was very unlikely, and the Globe instead chose to portray him as say
  • CBS has hit a new low. The bottom of this article [cbsnews.com] contains an absolutely classic response:

    "But Katz, the software expert, pointed out that the documents have both the so-called "superscript" th (where the letters are slightly higher than the rest of the sentence, such as 6th ) and a regular-sized "th". That would be common on a typewriter, not a computer.

    "There's one document from May 1972 that contains a normal "th" on the top. To produce that in Microsoft Word, you would have to go out of your way to

  • The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] is sayint this:
    "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.
    He just verified the signature as was suspected.
    • But that would mean CBS lied! I can't believe it!

      Two interesting things to me:

      1. Matley said he would not speak, on request of CBS. What changed?
      2. What Matley is saying here is that his testimony to CBS had no meaning. What he said here -- what we already knew he knew -- is that he cannot say anything of interest. As far as he knows and can testify, someone could have copied the signatures and pasted them on the documents with a computer. His testimony is essentially useless and meaningless.

      Of cour
      • Well, it appears the NY Times [nytimes.com] is reporting some more problems for CBS:

        Even inside CBS News there was deepening concern. Some of Mr. Rather's colleagues said in interviews that they were becoming increasingly anxious for him to silence the critics by proving the documents' validity and as new questions about their origin arose. Most declined to be quoted by name.

        and

        USA Today, which had presented the documents as legitimate on Thursday, featured an article yesterday with some experts surmising they were fo

        • I am not willing to take it at face value. We know that his quotes earlier said those features existed on typewriters, which is something that has already been conceded, and is not the point. The point -- as you imply -- is whether a typewriter could produce that exact output, and we know it can't.
          • I think you may be jumping the gun saying that a typewriter can't produce the exact output. It's not yet been a week, and since these things aren't necessarily catalogued on the 'net, it make take "real time" to find them (if I'm wrong, and someone has debunked this, please, point me to a link).

            I'm with you, I think these memos are as phoney as $3 bills, but I also don't think we've seen conclusive evidence that this COULDN'T have been produced on a typewriter. Overwhelming evidence that they're fraudule
            • if I'm wrong, and someone has debunked this, please, point me to a link

              I think the URL in the JE is fairly conclusive, on the issue of "pseudo-kerning"/ABC dimensions that these documents exhibit, but that didn't even exist until the 90s.

              I would additionally question items like the centering...how the hell do you center stuff that well, manually, with a non-fixed width font?

              Consider that this is in the head, so presumably, they type it often. They could beforehand measure the length of each line, fin

  • I am deeply concerned... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jhon ( 241832 ) on Wednesday September 15, 2004 @04:26AM (#10254217) Homepage Journal
    I have tried to keep an open mind with this entire CBS trash. I've finally come to the conclusion that I right now believe the documents are forged -- and I'm begining to believe CBS aired the report KNOWING there were serious problems with those documents.

    Today in the The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] we see the following:
    Will said she examined two disputed Killian memos, one of which was not used on the broadcast. She said she saw discrepancies in Killian's signature from an undisputed military document bearing his handwriting. Will said she also questioned whether an early 1970s typewriter could have produced the superscript, such as a raised "th," on the memos, and noted differences in the letterhead, the salutation and the way the date was rendered.

    All these discrepancies "looked like trouble to me," Will said, adding that she told CBS this "in a resounding way."
    Will was not the only expert expressing doubts. But what I find most troubling is the following:
    CBS began to doubt Will because she started expanding her role and doing Google searches about Bush's whereabouts at the time, said an executive who insisted on anonymity because the network did not want to go beyond the official statements. But Will said she was merely doing research into whether superscript existed in 1972.
    Let me get this straight -- they actually STOP trusting an expert who RESEARCHES the materials she's trying to authenticate? I'm floored.

    I get the VERY strong suspicion that 60 minutes already decided that the documents were authentic -- experts be damned. I see CBS, 60 minutes and Rather's attitude appears to be "Well, we say there are true. That should be good enough.".

    Not only am I not buying it, it pisses me off. I TRUSTED 60 minutes. I TRUSTED Rather. They have lost my trust and I'll not view another CBS news show again unless they come clean.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer

Close