Knight Of The Mind

I'll do my best to present a philosophical and generally conservative look at current events and life, the universe and everything. Readers are invited to take all that's posted herein with a grain of salt. or if they prefer, a grain of salt, a slice of lime and a shot of tequila.

Location: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Greetings and welcome. My name is Steve, I'm 35 years old and I work for the US Army as an Operations Research Analyst. Hence my blog title Knight Of The Mind.

Friday, September 10, 2004

So Why Would Anyone Suspect CBS

SKY PILOT (on lists about 48 different concerns that Dan Rather did not address as to authenticity of his memo report.

1. proportional spacing not generally available (no confirmation this type of technology was available at TANG)

2. CBS admits that it does *not* have the originals, but only original documents can be proven to be real; copies can *never* be authenticated positively...repeat: only original documents can be proven real. CBS never had the originals, so CBS knew that it was publishing something that couldn't be assured of authenticity

3. superscripts not generally available

4. Small "th" single element not generally available (not common, but available. Highly unlikely the machines were available at TANG)

5. 4's produced on a typewriter are open at the top. 4's on a word processor are closed. Compare the genuine Bush ANG documents, where the 4's are open at the top, to Rather's forgeries, where the 4's are closed at the top

6. Smart quotes. Curved apostrophes and quotation marks were not available – only vertical hash marks.

7. The blurriness of the copy indicates it was recopied dozens of times, common tactic of forgers (confirmed by CBS).

8. Signature block. Typical authentic military signature block has name, then rank, then on the next line the person's position. This just has rank beneath the name.

9. Margins. These look like a computer's unjustified default, not the way a person typing would have done it. Typewriters had fixed margins that “rang” and froze the carriage when typist either hit “mar rel” or manually returned carriage.

10. Date inconsistent with military style type. Date with three letters, or in form as 110471.

11. Words run over consistent with word processor.

12. Times Roman has been available since 1931, but only in linotype printshops...until released with Apple MacIntosh in 1984 and Windows 3.1 in 1991.

13. Signature looks faked, and it cut at the very end of the last letter rather than a fade when pressure would have been released.

14. No errors and whiteout (CBS used copies)

15. No letterhead

16. Exact match for Microsoft Word Processor, version disputed, but converted to pdf matches exactly.

17. Paper size problem, Air Force and Guard did not use 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper until the 1980s.

18. Overlap analysis is an exact match (see #15).

19. Absence of hyphens to split words between lines, c/w 1970's typewriter. (see #8)

20. 5000 Longmont #8 in Houston Tx. does not exist (actually does exist, but Mr. Bush had already moved TWICE from this address at the time the memo was written).

21. Box 34567 is suspicious, at best. This would not be used on correspondence, but rather forms. The current use of the po box 34567 is Ashland Chemical Company, A Division of Ashland Oil, Incorporated P. O. Box 34567 Houston (this has been confirmed by the Pentagon, per James Rosen on Fox News)

22. It would have been nearly impossible to center a letterhead with proportional spacing without a computer (not impossible, but for Killiam, who did not type, improbable).

23. Bush's grade would be abbreviated "1/Lt" not "1st Lt"

24. Subject matter bizarre

25. Air Force did not use street addresses for their offices, rather HQ AFLC/CC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433.

26. Kerning was not available

27. In the August 18, 1973 memo, Jerry Killian purportedly writes: "Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." but General Staudt, who thought very highly of Lt. Bush, retired in 1972.

28. Language not generally used by military personnel.

29. Not signed or initialed by author, typist, or clerk.

30. Not in any format that a military person would use, e.g. orders not given by Memo.

31. Is the document original or a copy of an original? Why all the background noise such as black marks and a series of repeated dots (as if run through a Xerox).(Rather explained his document was a photocopy-brings up additional questions of how redacted black address was visible from a several generation copy)

32. The Killiam family rejected these documents as forgeries. Then where did the “personal files” come from if not the family?

33. Why no three hole punches evident at the top of the page?

34. Mr. Bush would have had automatic physical scheduled for his Birthday – in July! He would not have received correspondence.

35. Why is the redacted address of Longmont #8 visible beneath the black mark? This would have been impossible after one copy, but it would be visible if the document was scanned.

36. Why were these exact same documents available for sale on the Internet y Marty Heldt, of leftist web site Tom Paine, as early as January 2004? Is this where CBS obtained their copies?

37. Acronym should be OER, not ORET.

38. Last line of document 4 "Austin will not be pleased with this" is not in the same font and has been added!

39. Handwriting experts are not document experts – apples and oranges.

40. Lt Col Killian didn't type

41. The forged documents had no initials from a clerk

42. There was no CC list (needed for orders)

43. Subject line in memos was normally CAPITALIZED in the military

44. The forged documents used incorrect terminology ("physical examination" instead of "medical")

45. There was no "receipt confirmation box" (required for orders)

46. The superscript "th" in the forged documents was raised half-way above the typed line (consistent with MS Word, but inconsistent with military typewriters which kept everything in-line to avoid writing outside the pre-printed boxes of standard forms).

47. Regarding superscript - typewriter example had it underlined in the keystroke but the forged document doesn't.

48. May 4, 1972 "order" memo and the May 19, 1972 "commitment" memo typeface doesn't match the official evaluation signed 26 May 1972. Or does the TxANG have a new typewriter just for Col. Killian's memorandum.

Other than that, why would anyone impugn Dan Rather's journalistic integrity?

Update I: The American Mind describes this memo as The Smoking Gun That Wasn't.

Update II: The Spoons Experience was Rather unimpressed with CBS' pathetic self defense.

Update III: Power Line has extensuvely outlined aspects of Dan Rather's disingenous journalism.

Update IV: Michelle Malkin links to site that has suggested an advertiser boycott of CBS and an FEC investigation to determine if McCain Fiengold has been violated. She's feeling generous and is willing to settle for an Independent Commission.

Update V: Varifrank attacks this particular lie of Dan Rather with a finely honed tool of BS destruction; Occam's Razor.

Update VI: According to Drudge, the leading military experct cBS interviewed to legitimize their smear has retracted his support. Gruesome details below...

Saturday, another retired Air National Guard officer came forward to attack CBSNEWS credibility. Retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, who was cited by a senior CBS official on Thursday as the network's "trump card" in verifying the documents, said in an interview that he was "misled" by CBS and believed the documents to be forgeries.Hodges said that he was read only excerpts of the documents and never saw the documents. A CBS spokesman said the network stands by its report.

Rather embarassing....

Update V: Wizbang is naming names. The forger is....(I won't steal Wizbang's thunder.)


As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by