Revision as of 03:55, 10 December 2007 edit68.242.168.6 (talk) →Superscripted "th": original research and quote farming← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:04, 26 November 2024 edit undoXavierItzm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,856 editsm →Typography: clarify source | ||
(164 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Clues to forgery in a 2004 political controversy}} | |||
During the ] controversy in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was challenged by a variety of individuals and groups. Proof of authenticity is likely impossible without original documents, and since ] used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals. However, the validity of these photocopied documents was challenged on a number of grounds, ranging from alleged anachronisms in their typography to issues pertaining to their content. | |||
{{Further|Killian documents controversy|George W. Bush military service controversy}} | |||
During the ] in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was disputed by a variety of individuals and groups. Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents, and since ] used only ]ed and ] duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the ] of the originals. However, proving documents inauthentic does not depend on the availability of originals, and the validity of these photocopied documents has been challenged on a number of grounds,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/bush-national-guard-story-lives|title=The Bush National Guard Story Lives!|work=motherjones.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/bush.html|title=Are the Bush Documents Fakes?|work=xavier.edu}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-24/ex-60-minutes-producer-is-no-hollywood-hero|title=Ex-'60 Minutes' Producer Is No Hollywood Hero|first=Megan|last=McArdle|newspaper=Bloomberg.com|date=24 July 2014|via=www.bloomberg.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://washingtonmonthly.com/2004/09/15/killian-finale/|title=Killian Finale?|date=15 September 2004|work=washingtonmonthly.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/truth-or-consequences/|title=Truth or Consequences|date=21 January 2013|work=texasmonthly.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/tangled_web/2004/09/rather_suspicious.html|title=Rather Suspicious|first=Josh|last=Levin|date=10 September 2004|via=Slate}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6055248|title=CBS News admits Bush documents can't be verified|date=21 September 2004|work=]}}</ref><ref name=Wired2017>{{cite magazine|url= https://www.wired.com/story/meet-the-font-detectives-who-ferret-out-fakery/|title=Meet the Font Detectives Who Ferret Out Fakery|first=Glenn|last=Fleishman|date=13 September 2017|magazine=Wired.com}}</ref> ranging from ]s in their typography to issues pertaining to their content. | |||
==Typography== | == Typography == | ||
]'s animated GIF image comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a 2004-era ] document made with default settings]] | ]'s animated GIF image comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a 2004-era ] document made with default settings]] | ||
In the initial hours and days after the CBS broadcast, most of the criticism of the documents' authenticity centered |
In the initial hours and days after the CBS broadcast, most of the criticism of the documents' authenticity centered on the fact that they did not look like typical ] documents and appeared very similar to documents produced with modern ]. These criticisms, first raised by bloggers,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jenny Attiyeh |title=Who's got the power? |url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2005/02/whos-got-the-power/ |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=3 February 2005 |quote=Powerline, a conservative blog, was one of the first to raise questions about the authenticity of memos on President Bush’s National Guard service, broadcast by CBS on “60 Minutes.”}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=''Rathergate'' |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/rathergate.html |website=] |publisher=] |access-date=16 April 2021 |date=2007 |quote=Scott Johnson Power Line Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? I called that post "The 61st Minute,"}}</ref> were taken up by outlets of the mainstream press, including '']'', '']'', the '']'', and others, who sought opinions from multiple experts. The arguments and findings are summarized below. | ||
===Proportional fonts=== | === Proportional fonts === | ||
One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of ] (as opposed to a ], where all glyphs have a single, standard width). Most typewriters in 1972 used fixed-width ], and, according to ''The Washington Post'',<ref name=WaPo0914 /> all of the authenticated documents from the ] were typed using fixed-width fonts commonly associated with typewriters. | |||
One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of ]. The majority of typewriters available in 1972 used fixed width ], and, according to ''The Washington Post''<ref name=WaPo0914>{{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | accessdate=2007-02-20 | publisher=The Washington Post }}</ref>, all of the authenticated documents from the TexANG were typed using fixed width fonts commonly associated with typewriters. One document released by the Pentagon on ], ] used a proportionally-spaced font somewhat similar to the font used in the Killian memos.<!-- ref>DEAD as of 2007-02-20{{cite web | title=http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=324}}</ref--> This document did not originate from Killian. Some have suggested that because they are photocopies, the actual font of the Killian Documents may be almost impossible to identify. Some proportional fonts were available on military typewriters of that era. According to ], this 1969 letter<ref name=Mapes1>{{cite web | title=Letter dated "8 August 1969" | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf | accessdate=2007-02-20 |publisher="Truth and Duty", Mary Mapes' website }}</ref> from Gen. Ross Ayers of TexANG exhibits proportional spacing, as does this letter<ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc9_1-3.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc9_1-3.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> of resignation in protest from a TexANG secretary, as does this 1963 White House memorandum.<ref>{{cite web | title= White House memorandum | url=http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/NSAMs/nsam273.asp | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> None of these proportional font examples is the same font as that used on the Killian documents and none originated from Killian. | |||
Several experts interviewed by the media suggested that the proportional fonts in the documents indicated likely forgery. |
Several experts interviewed by the media suggested that the proportional fonts in the documents indicated likely forgery. John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at ], the parent of ], stated that ]s that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time ({{Inflation|US|20000|1972|fmt=eq|r=-3}}).{{citation needed|date=September 2022}} William Flynn, a ] document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques.<ref>{{cite news | title=Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9_2.html | access-date=2005-12-21 | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=September 10, 2004}}</ref> '']'' also indicated the presence of proportional fonts as suspicious because "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".<ref name=WaPo0914>{{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | access-date=2007-02-20 | newspaper=The Washington Post | first1=Michael | last1=Dobbs | first2=Howard | last2=Kurtz | date=September 14, 2004}}</ref> | ||
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in ] with typewriter repair experience from 1973 to 1985, said experts making the claim that typewriters were incapable of producing the memos "are full of crap. They just don't know." He said there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key |
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in ] with typewriter repair experience from 1973 to 1985, said experts making the claim that typewriters were incapable of producing the memos "are full of crap. They just don't know." He said there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he said were not unusual — for creating the superscript <sup>th</sup>.<ref>{{cite news | title=The X Files Of Lt. Bush | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html | archive-url=https://archive.today/20130104234427/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=January 4, 2013 | access-date=2005-12-21 | publisher=TIME | date=September 13, 2004}}</ref> | ||
Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts at ], responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the IBM Executive or Selectric Composer, which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing.<ref name=WaPo0914/> Phinney says that each time a typeface was redeveloped for mechanical technologies with different width factors, the width and designs are altered, which is why even if Press Roman had been intended to look like Times Roman, the result is significantly different. | Thomas W. Phinney II, program manager for fonts at ], responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the ] or ], which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing.<ref name=WaPo0914 /> Phinney says that each time a typeface was redeveloped for mechanical technologies with different width factors, the width and designs are altered, which is why even if ] had been intended to look like ], the result is significantly different.<ref name=TypekitBlog>{{cite web|last1=Phinney|first1=Thomas|title=Bush Guard memos used Times Roman, not Times New Roman|url=http://blog.typekit.com/2006/08/03/bush_guard_memo/|website=The Typekit Blog|access-date=20 April 2015|date=3 August 2006}}</ref> Phinney suggests that the real typist prevented Word from auto-formatting "th" in superscript by typing and deleting a space in some cases but in other cases did not use the space or left it in the document.<ref name=Wired2017/> | ||
Phinney's analysis was based on the fact that the typography of the Killian documents could be closely matched with a modern personal computer and printer using Microsoft Word with the default font (Times New Roman) and other settings. Therefore the equipment with which the Killian documents were actually produced must have been capable of matching the typographical characteristics produced by this modern technology. | Phinney's analysis was based on the fact that the typography of the Killian documents could be closely matched with a modern personal computer and printer using ] with the default font (]) and other settings. Therefore, the equipment with which the Killian documents were actually produced must have been capable of matching the typographical characteristics produced by this modern technology. | ||
As Phinney explained, the letterspacing of the Times New Roman font used by Microsoft Word with a modern personal computer and printer employs a system of 18 units relative to the letter height (em), with common characters being 5 to 17 units wide. (The technology allows even finer variability of character widths, but the 18 unit system was chosen for compatibility with the Linotype phototypesetting and earlier hot-metal versions of the font.) In contrast, the variability of character widths available on early 1970s typewriters using proportional letterspacing was more limited, due to the mechanical technology employed. The most sophisticated of these machines, the IBM Selectric Composer, used a system of 9 units relative to the letter height, in which all characters were 3 to 9 units wide. Less complex machines used fewer widths. | As Phinney explained, the letterspacing of the Times New Roman font used by Microsoft Word with a modern personal computer and printer employs a system of 18 units relative to the letter height (]), with common characters being 5 to 17 units wide. (The technology allows even finer variability of character widths, but the 18 unit system was chosen for compatibility with the ] phototypesetting and earlier hot-metal versions of the font.) In contrast, the variability of character widths available on early 1970s typewriters using proportional letterspacing was more limited, due to the mechanical technology employed. The most sophisticated of these machines, the IBM Selectric Composer, used a system of 9 units relative to the letter height, in which all characters were 3 to 9 units wide. Less complex machines used fewer widths. | ||
Differences in individual character widths accumulate over the length of a line, so that comparatively small differences would become readily apparent. Because of the differing character widths employed, the letterspacing exhibited by the Killian documents (matching that produced by a modern computer and printer) could not have been produced with a mechanical typewriter using proportional letterspacing in the early 1970s. At the time the documents were purportedly created, the matching letterspacing could only have been produced using phototypesetting or hot-metal printing. Since it is not a realistic possibility that Killian would have had these documents printed, Phinney |
Differences in individual character widths accumulate over the length of a line, so that comparatively small differences would become readily apparent. Because of the differing character widths employed, the letterspacing exhibited by the Killian documents (matching that produced by a modern computer and printer) could not have been produced with a mechanical typewriter using proportional letterspacing in the early 1970s. At the time the documents were purportedly created, the matching letterspacing could only have been produced using phototypesetting or hot-metal printing. Since it is not a realistic possibility that Killian would have had these documents printed, Phinney concludes that they are almost certainly modern forgeries.<ref name=Wired2017/> | ||
Phinney has long offered $1,000 "to anybody who can produce an office-level device that was available in 1972 that can replicate the relative line endings of those memos" but no-one has ever tried to do that.<ref name=Wired2017/> | |||
''Desktop'' magazine in ] analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman. | |||
'']'' magazine in ] analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman. | |||
===Inter-character spacing=== | |||
Joseph Newcomer, who helped pioneer electronic typesetting and word processing software<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04264/382133.stm |title=Newsmaker: Joseph M. Newcomer / Computer specialist is in the thick of a pitched-font battle over documents |date=September 20, 2004 |publisher=Post-Gazette}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | |||
=== Inter-character spacing === | |||
|last= Reddy |first=D.R. | |||
Joseph Newcomer, who helped pioneer electronic typesetting and word processing software,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04264/382133.stm |title=Newsmaker: Joseph M. Newcomer / Computer specialist is in the thick of a pitched-font battle over documents |date=September 20, 2004 |publisher=Post-Gazette | first=Pohla | last=Smith}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | |||
|coauthors= W. Broadley, L.D. Erman, R. Johnsson, J. Newcomer, G. Robertson, and J. Wright | |||
|last= Reddy |first=D.R. |author2=W. Broadley |author3=L.D. Erman |author4=R. Johnsson |author5=J. Newcomer |author6=G. Robertson |author7=J. Wright | |||
|year=1972 |month=December | |||
|date=December 1972 | |||
|title=A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation | |title=A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation | ||
|journal= Information Processing Letters | |journal= Information Processing Letters | ||
|volume=1 |issue=6 |pages= |
|volume=1 |issue=6 |pages=246–251 | ||
claims that the memos display a simple alternative to ] characteristic of ] fonts but not available on any office equipment in 1972. For example, in words containing "fr", TrueType moves the "r" left to tuck it in under the top part of the "f".<ref name=WaPo0914/> | |doi=10.1016/0020-0190(72)90021-X}}</ref> claims that the memos display a simple alternative to ] characteristic of ] fonts but not available on any office equipment in 1972. For example, in words containing "fr", TrueType moves the "r" left to tuck it in under the top part of the "f".<ref name=WaPo0914 /> The ''Weekly Standard'' called Newcomer's explanation the "definitive account" of why the documents were "necessarily forgeries."<ref>{{cite web | title=What Blogs Have Wrought | author=Jonathan V. Last | date=2004-09-27 | url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040920001008/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp| url-status=dead| archive-date=September 20, 2004}}</ref> The ''Washington Post'' quoted Newcomer in an article regarding questions about the authenticity of the papers.<ref name=WaPo14 /> | ||
=== Centered headers === | |||
===Superscripted "th"=== | |||
Creating centered headers is possible on a typewriter, even if the font is proportional. The typist can left-justify the header and then use the space bar to count the number of spaces from the end of the text to the right margin. In addition, the IBM Executive and Selectric have a ] key that would give a more accurate measure of the whitespace. Once this number is determined, halving it gives the number of leading spaces for a centered header. The same centering will be achieved on different occasions if the paper is inserted flush to the paper guide, and the same count of spaces is applied. For an example of multiple centered lines produced using a proportionally spaced typewriter font, see the third page of the contemporary annual history of Bush's Alabama guard unit.<ref name="defenselink.mil">{{cite web | title=History | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | access-date=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
The default behavior of Microsoft Word is to format ] abbreviations (1st, 2nd, 10th) as superscripts, that use a smaller font size and are raised above the line of text (1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>, 10<sup>th</sup>). This automatic formatting can be blocked by leaving a space between the number and the letters, or it can be reversed using the ''undo'' command. On most typewriters of the 1970s, a superscripted ordinal was made by manually rolling the ] back slightly so that the letters could be typed above the line of text; however, the letters were the same size as the rest of the letters since they were produced with the same elements. Some typewriters had a special key for creating a smaller, superscripted "th", but this would be confined within the line of type, unless the typist manually rolled back the platen. | |||
Word processors, by contrast, center text based on a computer algorithm using a fixed central reference point rather than the left margin on the typewriter as measured from the paper's edge. If the paper in a printer is flush to the left of the paper guide, then a word processor will achieve the same centering throughout a given page and on different pages. The bloggers asserted that it is unlikely that two documents produced 3 months apart by a manual centering process would exactly overlap. In the Killian memos the text matches perfectly when overlaid with a word processor-produced 3 line address block, and between the 3- and 2- line blocks of different memos.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} | |||
Among the 6 memos produced by ] there are 3 instances of a superscript "th" that are both smaller than the other characters ''and'' raised above the line of type (for example, 111<sup>th</sup>).<ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> There are also 7 instances where a space is inserted between the number and the letters, and 4 instances where "th" and "st" ordinals immediately follow a number but are not superscripted.<ref> {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf (See above) | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> Three of the documents use multiple formats for ordinals within the same document. | |||
=== Curved apostrophes === | |||
Marian Carr Knox recalled that during her time at the Guard she used a mechanical Olympia typewriter that did have a special 'th' key. (This 'th' character was the same weight as the other characters.) She said it was replaced by an ] in the early 1970s. Several documents of unquestioned authenticity in the Bush records have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout; however, they are not raised above the level of the normal text.<ref>{{cite news | title=http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf | url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=USA Today }}</ref><ref> {{cite web | title=http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif | url=http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> Like the 'th' key available for the Olympia, they go to the same height as the other lower-case letters. The official report of Bush's ANG unit for 1972, typed on a monospaced typewriter, contains numerous superscript footnotes, all apparently created by rolling the platen forward.<ref> {{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
In several places, the documents use apostrophes such as in the words ''I'm'' and ''won't''. These are curved somewhat to the left, similar to the shape of a comma. Most typewriters of the era featured vertical apostrophes, rather than angled or curved ones.{{Citation needed|date=January 2008}} They were also used for both the opening and closing ] embedded within another quotation instead of the curved forms available in modern day word processors. Compare the straight forms in | |||
: The witness testified that "Jones yelled, 'Run!' before fleeing the scene" in court yesterday. | |||
===Centered headers=== | |||
Creating centered headers is possible on a typewriter, even if the font is proportional. The typist can left-justify the header and then use the space bar to count the number of spaces from the end of the text to the right margin. In addition, the IBM Executive and Selectric have a ] key that would give a more accurate measure of the whitespace. Once this number is determined, halving it gives the number of leading spaces for a centered header. The same centering will be achieved on different occasions if the paper is inserted flush to the paper guide, and the same count of spaces is applied. For an example of multiple centered lines produced using a proportionally spaced typewriter font, see the third page of the contemporary annual history of Bush's Alabama guard unit.<ref>{{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
to the curved forms in | |||
Word processors, by contrast, center text based on a computer algorithm using a fixed central reference point rather than the left margin on the typewriter as measured from the paper's edge. If the paper in a printer is flush to the left of the paper guide, then a word processor will achieve the same centering throughout a given page and on different pages. The bloggers asserted that it is unlikely that two documents produced 3 months apart by a manual centering process would exactly overlap. In the Killian memos the text matches perfectly when overlaid with a word processor-produced 3 line address block, and between the 3- and 2- line blocks of different memos. | |||
: The witness testified that “Jones yelled, ‘Run!’ before fleeing the scene” in court yesterday. | |||
===Curved apostrophes=== | |||
In several places, the documents use apostrophes such as in the words ''I'm'' and ''won't''. These are curved somewhat to the left, similar to the shape of a comma. Allegedly, most typewriters of the era featured vertical apostrophes, rather than angled or curved ones; however, an example of curved apostrophes in documents produced by Bush's unit is in the 1973 "historical record".<ref>{{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/historical_record_147th_fighterintergrp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> Also a 1954 ad for the IBM Executive typewriter, consisting primarily of a print sample, shows curved apostrophes.<ref>{{cite web | title=1954 IBM Executive Typewriter Ad | url=http://www.etypewriters.com/1954-b-2.JPG | accessdate=2007-06-29 }}</ref>. | |||
The latter requires two separate glyphs for each pair of single and double quotation marks.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} | |||
Bloggers have frequently asserted that the documents use curly, or "smart", quotes – distinctly paired left and right quotation marks. This feature is common on modern word processors. The documents, though, use no such paired quotation marks so there is no justification for the comparison. | |||
=== Reproduction using contemporary technology === | |||
Thus far, no one has been able to reproduce the exact typography, spacing and layout of the Killian memos using technology available in 1972. The political weblog defeatjohnjohn.com offered a $10,000 reward to "anyone who can find for me a typewriter from 1972 that could have reasonably made those documents."<ref>{{cite web | title=DJJ | url=http://www.defeatjohnjohn.com/2004_09_05_archive.htm | accessdate=2007-11-07 }}</ref> Through a series of contributions and pledges from all over the world, the reward grew to more than $50,000 within weeks, giving the previously-small blog some surprising international publicity. (Despite extensive media coverage of this challenge, to date no one has been publicly able to accomplish the task and claim the money.) | |||
Many analysts have said that they were not concerned with whether or not it was hypothetically possible to duplicate one or even a few of the typographic features with 1973 technology, but whether it was likely that all of them would have matched, at least as closely as the Microsoft Word samples, using a single typewriter that could plausibly have been in use at a remote national guard base in 1973 (and apparently wasn't used to type any other memos from that base). Several people with experience in operating either the IBM Executive or the Selectric Composer have said that they were much more complicated to operate than a regular typewriter and therefore were reserved for important correspondence within the companies where they had worked. | |||
=== Similarity to contemporary documents === | === Similarity to contemporary documents === | ||
The Washington Post reported that "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."<ref name=WaPo14/> This raises the question of the likelihood of a National Guard office having access to this type of equipment. |
'']'' reported that "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."<ref name=WaPo14>{{cite news | title = Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers | newspaper = Washington Post |date=2004-09-14 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | access-date = 2007-10-05 }}</ref> This raises the question of the likelihood of a National Guard office having access to this type of equipment. | ||
According to ''The Washington Post'', "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..." (September 14, 2004).{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} | |||
However, on ], ] another PDF packet of Bush's Guard records appeared on a Pentagon site containing the full master list of the officially released records.<ref>{{cite web | title=Bush Records (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> The PDF packet is labeled "Documents Released on ] ]," and the sixth document, dated ], ] and titled "Appointment and Federal Recognition," is proportionally spaced. While it appears to be of a different font style than that used in the Killian memos, it is apparently the first officially released document that is in some sort of obviously proportionally spaced font. Several other proportionally spaced TexANG documents have since surfaced. | |||
According to '']'' on ], ], "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..." | |||
== Content and formatting == | == Content and formatting == | ||
Line 66: | Line 61: | ||
=== Signatures === | === Signatures === | ||
Of the documents, only the |
Of the documents, only the May 4 memo bears a full ]. CBS stated that document examiner Marcel Matley had determined the signature was authentic.<ref name="Report 1D">{{cite news | title=CBS Evening News Transcript|date=September 10, 2004 | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1D.pdf | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> However, Matley told ''The Washington Post'' on September 14, "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them" because they are copies far removed from the original source.<ref name=WaPo14 /> Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, expressed the "limited opinion" that Killian did not sign or initial the documents.<ref>{{cite news | title=Questions mount on Guard memos' authenticity |publisher=The Washington Times |date=September 11, 2004 | url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-104821-5968r.htm | access-date=2006-04-01}}</ref> | ||
===Skepticism from Killian's family and others=== | === Skepticism from Killian's family and others === | ||
Jerry Killian's wife and son argued that their father never used typewriting equipment and would have written these memos by hand. The family also stated that Killian was not known for keeping personal memos and that he had been very pleased with George Bush's performance in his |
Jerry Killian's wife and son argued that their father never used typewriting equipment and would have written these memos by hand. The family also stated that Killian was not known for keeping personal memos and that he had been very pleased with ]'s performance in his TXANG unit.<ref>{{cite news | title=FOX Interviews Commander's Son|work=FOX News |date=September 10, 2004 | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132047,00.html | access-date=2006-11-27 | first=James | last=Rosen}}</ref> | ||
In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes,<ref> |
In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes,<ref>{{Cite news|last=Balleza|first=Maureen|last2=Zernike|first2=Kate|date=2004-09-15|title=THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: NATIONAL GUARD; Memos on Bush Are Fake But Accurate, Typist Says|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/us/the-2004-campaign-national-guard-memos-on-bush-are-fake-but-accurate.html|access-date=2023-01-05|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used.<ref>{{cite news|title=Exhibit 9G. Transcript of interview with Marian Carr Knox|publisher=CBS News|access-date=2006-04-01|url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/9G.pdf}}</ref> | ||
Earl W. Lively, who at the time was the commanding officer at the Austin |
Earl W. Lively, who at the time was the commanding officer at the Austin TXANG facility was quoted in the '']'' as saying, "They're forged as hell."<ref>{{cite news | title=Bush Guard papers 'forged'|work=The Washington Times |date=September 12, 2004 | url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-101433-4296r.htm | access-date=2006-11-27 }}</ref> | ||
===Mention of influence by retired officer=== | === Mention of influence by retired officer === | ||
Walter Staudt, cited in the memo dated |
Walter Staudt, cited in the memo dated August 18, 1973, as exerting pressure on officers to "sugar coat" their evaluations of Bush, had in fact retired from the service in March 1972.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} | ||
Staudt also denied being pressured to accept George W. Bush into the National Guard, in an exclusive interview with ABC ("Speaking Out," |
Staudt also denied being pressured to accept George W. Bush into the National Guard, in an exclusive interview with ABC ("Speaking Out," 17 September 2004): "'No one called me about taking George (W.) Bush into the Air National Guard,' he said. 'It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody. And I never pressured anybody about George (W.) Bush because I had no reason to,' Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public."<ref>{{cite news | title=Speaking Out |date=September 17, 2004 | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123458&page=1 | access-date=2006-04-01 | publisher=ABC News }}</ref> | ||
===Mention of |
=== Mention of flight inquiry === | ||
It is a matter of record that Lt Bush was suspended from flight status on August 1, 1972 for failure to complete a required annual physical.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001141.pdf| |
It is a matter of record that Lt Bush was suspended from flight status on August 1, 1972, for failure to complete a required annual physical.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001141.pdf|access-date=2006-04-01|date=September 29, 1972|title=Records from the Texas Air National Guard}}</ref> The Killian memo dated May 4, 1972, is an order to Lt Bush requiring him to report for his physical by May 14, thus making it appear that Lt Bush ignored a direct written order. Lt. Bush's last rating report, dated May 2, 1973, states that Lt Bush "cleared" the base on May 15, 1972, to head to Alabama.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records |title=Bush Records |publisher=Dod.mil |access-date=2010-05-24}}</ref> The Killian memo of August 1 called for a flight inquiry board to review Lt Bush's status. However, no records of this request or the flight inquiry board itself have been found. Regulations required such a review following the grounding of any pilot.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.glcq.com/regs| title = glcq.com}}</ref> | ||
===Mother's Day=== | === Mother's Day === | ||
Retired Colonel and former |
Retired Colonel and former TXANG pilot William Campenni disputed the document dated Thursday May 4, 1972, which ordered Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed. The ] Air Guard Base was closed for ] the weekend of May 13–14. The next Air Guard drill weekend was May 20–21.<ref>{{cite news | ||
| last =Campenni | | last =Campenni | ||
| first =William | | first =William | ||
Line 90: | Line 85: | ||
| work =Washington Times | | work =Washington Times | ||
| publisher =News World Communications, Inc. | | publisher =News World Communications, Inc. | ||
| |
|date=2005-01-25 | ||
| url =http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050117-100017-7792r.htm | | url =http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050117-100017-7792r.htm | ||
| |
| access-date =2007-09-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=54029&D=2005-01-18&SO=&HC=4 |title=Article |publisher=Rantburg.com |access-date=2010-05-24}}</ref> Bush's last day on base was Monday, May 15, 1972, according to the official record. | ||
== Peter Tytell's analysis == | |||
===Formatting=== | |||
The CBS review panel led by ] (a Republican and former ]) and ] hired Peter Tytell, a leading document examiner, to analyze the four documents: | |||
Some of the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time. However, authenticated contemporaneous documents sometimes vary from the style manual as well. The claims are: | |||
:concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar (from a previously released TexANG document from 1968) was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.<ref>{{cite news | title=Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4 | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf | access-date=2007-02-03 | publisher=CBS News | page=1 }}</ref> | |||
* According to U.S. Air Force practice of the 1970s, the memo dated "04 May 1972" should have had the date formatted as "4 May 72" -- months abbreviated to three characters, leading zeros not used, and only the last two digits of the year until 2000. {{Fact|date=October 2007}} However, this format is not shown in this 1969 letter from then ] Gen. Ayers regarding Bush demonstrates: <ref name=Mapes1/>. Similarly, this 1973 official memo from Gen. Straw regarding an officer involved in the Bush case, is dated "2 February 1973"<!-- Don't wikify this one! --> — writing out both month and year in full.<ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc8.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc8.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> Bush's official flight records are also headed with full year notation.<ref> {{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/BushFlightRecords.pdf | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/BushFlightRecords.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
== See also == | |||
* The terminology "MEMORANDUM FOR" was never used in the 1970s.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} However, Mary Mapes again offered contradictory evidence via a 1968 letter regarding Bush from Gen. Staudt that uses that same heading, though the first several letters of the word "MEMORANDUM" are obscured in the photocopy.<ref> {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc2_1-5.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc2_1-5.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* {{annotated link|John F. Kennedy document hoax }} — another forgery case about one decade earlier; compare the ] issues by which the alleged document age was ] via detectable ]s | |||
== References == | |||
* The abbreviations are incorrectly formatted, in that a period is used after military rank (1st Lt.). According to the Air Force style manual {{Fact|date=October 2007}}, periods are not used in military rank abbreviations. However there are records in the DoD database of Bush's service records that show how military ranks are sometimes listed with a period in Air Force documents.<ref> {{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
* Killian's abbreviation for Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) includes periods after each capital letter -- it would have been unusual to use periods in this acronym {{Fact|date=October 2007}}. Again official documents of the squadron maintained by the DoD, similar abbreviations are presented with periods, such as E.I. Squadron, which is also often written without periods.<ref> {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/historical_record_147th_fighterintergrp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> In official documents, the phrase is also at times written out in shorthand, such as "Ftr Intcp" rather than with an acronym.<ref>{{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/personnel_pt6.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> The other four acronyms on that same document are used without periods. | |||
* According to an ex-Guard commander, retired Col. Bobby W. Hodges, the Guard never used the abbreviation "grp" for "group" or "OETR" for an officer evaluation review during the 1970s, as in the CBS documents. The correct terminology, he said, was "gp" and "OER."<ref name=WaPo14>{{cite web | title = Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers | publisher = Washington Post | date = 2004-09-14 | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer | accessdate = 2007-10-05 }} </ref> Usage in the memos varies; "gp" is used at times.<ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
* Lieutenant Colonel Killian's signature element is incorrect for letters prepared in the 1970s {{Fact|date=October 2007}}. One letter uses a three-line signature element, which was normally not used by officers below staff rank {{Fact|date=October 2007}}. However, other contemporaneous documents from Bush's own service records at the ] also use the three-line signature, including that of a "Major Herber" or that of a "Capt. Currie" on separate documents concerning Bush's appointment as 2nd Lt. as well as Heber's signature on Bush's suspension from flying status.<ref> {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/personnel_pt1.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} | |||
</ref><ref> {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/personnel_pt5.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
* The signature element is placed far to the right, instead of being left-justified, and that placement of the signature element to the right was not used or directed by Air Force standards until almost 20 years after the date of this letter {{Fact|date=October 2007}}. However, Mary Mapes again supplied as contrary evidence some memos from Gen. Ayers that include a right signature block.<ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc6.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc6.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf (See above) | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> | |||
===Paper size=== | |||
In 1921, two different committees decided on standard paper sizes for the United States. A group called the Permanent Conference on Printing established the 8 by 10½ size as the general U.S. government letterhead standard, while a Committee on the Simplification of Paper Sizes came up with the more familiar 8½ by 11 size now known as US Letter. The U.S. military used the smaller size up until the early 1980s.<ref>{{cite web | title=AF&PA : The U.S. Standard Paper Size | url=http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Pulp_and_Paper/Fun_Facts/The_U_S__Standard_Paper_Size.htm | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> In some authentic National Guard records, a solid line can be seen where the smaller paper was photocopied onto the larger paper.<ref>{{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001193.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001193.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> No such lines are visible on the Killian documents. | |||
==Dr. David Hailey's analysis== | |||
As discussed above, a number of experts in typewriters, computer typography and document examination have concluded that the Killian memos are not consistent with 1970's technology and are likely modern forgeries. The most prominent defender of the documents' authenticity has been Dr. David Hailey, a professor of Professional and Technical Communication in the English department at ] and director of a media lab there. Hailey was the subject of an email campaign demanding his dismissal from the university after bloggers discovered ] files in ] and alleged that he fabricated portions of the study.<ref>{{cite news | title=Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers | url=http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65250,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=Wired magazine }}</ref> | |||
Joseph Newcomer published a detailed rebuttal of Hailey's claims; The Weekly Standard called it the "definitive" explanation of why the documents were "necessarily forgeries."<ref>{{cite web | title=What Blogs Have Wrought | |||
| author=Jonathan V. Last | date=] | url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp?pg=2 |accessdate=2007-02-02}}</ref> The Washington Post quoted Newcomer in an article regarding questions about the authenticity of the papers.<ref name=WaPo14/> | |||
==Peter Tytell's analysis== | |||
The CBS review panel led by ] and ] hired Peter Tytell, a leading document examiner, to analyse the four documents: | |||
== External links == | |||
:concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.<ref>{{cite news | title=Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4 | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf | accessdate=2007-02-03 | publisher=CBS News | page=1 }}</ref> | |||
=== Primary source documents === | |||
==External links== | |||
=== Primary source documents === | |||
Links to large ] documents. | Links to large ] documents. | ||
The four '''CBS News''' Killian documents: | The four '''CBS News''' Killian documents: | ||
*], |
* | ||
*], |
* | ||
*], |
* | ||
*], |
* | ||
The six '''USA Today''' Killian documents: | The six '''USA Today''' Killian documents: | ||
* | * | ||
The CBS four and USA Today six are the documents supplied by ] to ]. | |||
'''Peter Tytell's''' analysis from the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report, | |||
* (USA Today) Page 31 is a 3 Nov 1970 memo from the office of Lt Col Killian on promotion of Lt Bush. | |||
'''Peter Tytell's''' analysis from the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report, | |||
===News items=== | |||
* CNSNews.com – ], ] | |||
* ABC News – ], ] | |||
* Washington Post – ], ] | |||
* ABC News – ], ] | |||
* American Spectator – ], ] | |||
* Washington Post – ], ] | |||
* Los Angeles Times – ], ] | |||
* The Seattle Times – ], ] | |||
* The American Thinker – ], ] | |||
* Time – ], ] | |||
* Washington Post – ], ] | |||
* – ], ] | |||
* Washington Post – Wednesday, ], ] | |||
* Los Angeles Times – ], ] | |||
* | |||
* NY Times – ], ] | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – ], ] | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – ], ] | |||
* Seattle Times – ], ] | |||
* by The Washington Post print edition. | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – ], ] | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – ], ] | |||
* – ''New York Times'' – ], ] | |||
* – timeline from ''USA Today'' – ], ] | |||
* '']'', ], ] | |||
=== News items === | |||
* ] | |||
* ABC News – September 9, 2004 | |||
*''Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power'', by Mary Mapes, November 2005, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 0-312-35195-X | |||
* Washington Post – September 10, 2004 | |||
*, including a documents section | |||
* ABC News – September 10, 2004 | |||
*] ], by washingtonpost.com] | |||
* American Spectator – September 10, 2004 | |||
* Washington Post – September 11, 2004 | |||
* Los Angeles Times – September 11, 2004 | |||
* The Seattle Times – September 11, 2004 | |||
* Time – September 13, 2004 | |||
* Washington Post – September 14, 2004 | |||
* – September 14, 2004 | |||
* Washington Post – Wednesday, September 15, 2004 | |||
* Youtube | |||
* Los Angeles Times – September 15, 2004 | |||
* | |||
* NY Times – September 15, 2004 | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – September 16, 2004 | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – September 16, 2004 | |||
* Seattle Times – September 17, 2004 | |||
* by The Washington Post print edition. | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – September 19, 2004 | |||
* ''Washington Post'' – September 19, 2004 | |||
* – ''New York Times'' – September 20, 2004 | |||
* – timeline from ''USA Today'' – September 21, 2004 | |||
* '']'', October 7, 2004 | |||
* ] | |||
* | |||
{{George W. Bush}} | |||
==References== | |||
{{ |
{{60 Minutes}} | ||
==See also== | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] |
Latest revision as of 19:04, 26 November 2024
Clues to forgery in a 2004 political controversy Further information: Killian documents controversy and George W. Bush military service controversyDuring the Killian documents controversy in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was disputed by a variety of individuals and groups. Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents, and since CBS used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals. However, proving documents inauthentic does not depend on the availability of originals, and the validity of these photocopied documents has been challenged on a number of grounds, ranging from anachronisms in their typography to issues pertaining to their content.
Typography
In the initial hours and days after the CBS broadcast, most of the criticism of the documents' authenticity centered on the fact that they did not look like typical typewritten documents and appeared very similar to documents produced with modern word-processing software. These criticisms, first raised by bloggers, were taken up by outlets of the mainstream press, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, and others, who sought opinions from multiple experts. The arguments and findings are summarized below.
Proportional fonts
One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of proportional fonts (as opposed to a monospaced typeface, where all glyphs have a single, standard width). Most typewriters in 1972 used fixed-width fonts, and, according to The Washington Post, all of the authenticated documents from the TexANG were typed using fixed-width fonts commonly associated with typewriters.
Several experts interviewed by the media suggested that the proportional fonts in the documents indicated likely forgery. John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com, stated that word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time (equivalent to $146,000 in 2023). William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques. The Washington Post also indicated the presence of proportional fonts as suspicious because "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".
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City with typewriter repair experience from 1973 to 1985, said experts making the claim that typewriters were incapable of producing the memos "are full of crap. They just don't know." He said there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he said were not unusual — for creating the superscript .
Thomas W. Phinney II, program manager for fonts at Adobe Systems, responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the IBM Executive or IBM Selectric Composer, which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing. Phinney says that each time a typeface was redeveloped for mechanical technologies with different width factors, the width and designs are altered, which is why even if Press Roman had been intended to look like Times Roman, the result is significantly different. Phinney suggests that the real typist prevented Word from auto-formatting "th" in superscript by typing and deleting a space in some cases but in other cases did not use the space or left it in the document.
Phinney's analysis was based on the fact that the typography of the Killian documents could be closely matched with a modern personal computer and printer using Microsoft Word with the default font (Times New Roman) and other settings. Therefore, the equipment with which the Killian documents were actually produced must have been capable of matching the typographical characteristics produced by this modern technology.
As Phinney explained, the letterspacing of the Times New Roman font used by Microsoft Word with a modern personal computer and printer employs a system of 18 units relative to the letter height (em), with common characters being 5 to 17 units wide. (The technology allows even finer variability of character widths, but the 18 unit system was chosen for compatibility with the Linotype phototypesetting and earlier hot-metal versions of the font.) In contrast, the variability of character widths available on early 1970s typewriters using proportional letterspacing was more limited, due to the mechanical technology employed. The most sophisticated of these machines, the IBM Selectric Composer, used a system of 9 units relative to the letter height, in which all characters were 3 to 9 units wide. Less complex machines used fewer widths.
Differences in individual character widths accumulate over the length of a line, so that comparatively small differences would become readily apparent. Because of the differing character widths employed, the letterspacing exhibited by the Killian documents (matching that produced by a modern computer and printer) could not have been produced with a mechanical typewriter using proportional letterspacing in the early 1970s. At the time the documents were purportedly created, the matching letterspacing could only have been produced using phototypesetting or hot-metal printing. Since it is not a realistic possibility that Killian would have had these documents printed, Phinney concludes that they are almost certainly modern forgeries.
Phinney has long offered $1,000 "to anybody who can produce an office-level device that was available in 1972 that can replicate the relative line endings of those memos" but no-one has ever tried to do that.
Desktop magazine in Australia analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman.
Inter-character spacing
Joseph Newcomer, who helped pioneer electronic typesetting and word processing software, claims that the memos display a simple alternative to kerning characteristic of TrueType fonts but not available on any office equipment in 1972. For example, in words containing "fr", TrueType moves the "r" left to tuck it in under the top part of the "f". The Weekly Standard called Newcomer's explanation the "definitive account" of why the documents were "necessarily forgeries." The Washington Post quoted Newcomer in an article regarding questions about the authenticity of the papers.
Centered headers
Creating centered headers is possible on a typewriter, even if the font is proportional. The typist can left-justify the header and then use the space bar to count the number of spaces from the end of the text to the right margin. In addition, the IBM Executive and Selectric have a kerning key that would give a more accurate measure of the whitespace. Once this number is determined, halving it gives the number of leading spaces for a centered header. The same centering will be achieved on different occasions if the paper is inserted flush to the paper guide, and the same count of spaces is applied. For an example of multiple centered lines produced using a proportionally spaced typewriter font, see the third page of the contemporary annual history of Bush's Alabama guard unit.
Word processors, by contrast, center text based on a computer algorithm using a fixed central reference point rather than the left margin on the typewriter as measured from the paper's edge. If the paper in a printer is flush to the left of the paper guide, then a word processor will achieve the same centering throughout a given page and on different pages. The bloggers asserted that it is unlikely that two documents produced 3 months apart by a manual centering process would exactly overlap. In the Killian memos the text matches perfectly when overlaid with a word processor-produced 3 line address block, and between the 3- and 2- line blocks of different memos.
Curved apostrophes
In several places, the documents use apostrophes such as in the words I'm and won't. These are curved somewhat to the left, similar to the shape of a comma. Most typewriters of the era featured vertical apostrophes, rather than angled or curved ones. They were also used for both the opening and closing quotation mark embedded within another quotation instead of the curved forms available in modern day word processors. Compare the straight forms in
- The witness testified that "Jones yelled, 'Run!' before fleeing the scene" in court yesterday.
to the curved forms in
- The witness testified that “Jones yelled, ‘Run!’ before fleeing the scene” in court yesterday.
The latter requires two separate glyphs for each pair of single and double quotation marks.
Similarity to contemporary documents
The Washington Post reported that "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." This raises the question of the likelihood of a National Guard office having access to this type of equipment.
According to The Washington Post, "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..." (September 14, 2004).
Content and formatting
In addition to typography, aspects of the memos such as the content and formatting have been challenged.
Signatures
Of the documents, only the May 4 memo bears a full signature. CBS stated that document examiner Marcel Matley had determined the signature was authentic. However, Matley told The Washington Post on September 14, "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them" because they are copies far removed from the original source. Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, expressed the "limited opinion" that Killian did not sign or initial the documents.
Skepticism from Killian's family and others
Jerry Killian's wife and son argued that their father never used typewriting equipment and would have written these memos by hand. The family also stated that Killian was not known for keeping personal memos and that he had been very pleased with George W. Bush's performance in his TXANG unit.
In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes, and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used.
Earl W. Lively, who at the time was the commanding officer at the Austin TXANG facility was quoted in the Washington Times as saying, "They're forged as hell."
Mention of influence by retired officer
Walter Staudt, cited in the memo dated August 18, 1973, as exerting pressure on officers to "sugar coat" their evaluations of Bush, had in fact retired from the service in March 1972.
Staudt also denied being pressured to accept George W. Bush into the National Guard, in an exclusive interview with ABC ("Speaking Out," 17 September 2004): "'No one called me about taking George (W.) Bush into the Air National Guard,' he said. 'It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody. And I never pressured anybody about George (W.) Bush because I had no reason to,' Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public."
Mention of flight inquiry
It is a matter of record that Lt Bush was suspended from flight status on August 1, 1972, for failure to complete a required annual physical. The Killian memo dated May 4, 1972, is an order to Lt Bush requiring him to report for his physical by May 14, thus making it appear that Lt Bush ignored a direct written order. Lt. Bush's last rating report, dated May 2, 1973, states that Lt Bush "cleared" the base on May 15, 1972, to head to Alabama. The Killian memo of August 1 called for a flight inquiry board to review Lt Bush's status. However, no records of this request or the flight inquiry board itself have been found. Regulations required such a review following the grounding of any pilot.
Mother's Day
Retired Colonel and former TXANG pilot William Campenni disputed the document dated Thursday May 4, 1972, which ordered Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed. The Ellington Air Guard Base was closed for Mother's Day the weekend of May 13–14. The next Air Guard drill weekend was May 20–21. Bush's last day on base was Monday, May 15, 1972, according to the official record.
Peter Tytell's analysis
The CBS review panel led by Dick Thornburgh (a Republican and former U.S. Attorney General) and Louis Boccardi hired Peter Tytell, a leading document examiner, to analyze the four documents:
- concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar (from a previously released TexANG document from 1968) was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.
See also
- Questioned document examination
- Dan Rather
- John F. Kennedy document hoax – 1993 American political hoax — another forgery case about one decade earlier; compare the typewriter forensics issues by which the alleged document age was falsified via detectable anachronisms
References
- "The Bush National Guard Story Lives!". motherjones.com.
- "Are the Bush Documents Fakes?". xavier.edu.
- McArdle, Megan (24 July 2014). "Ex-'60 Minutes' Producer Is No Hollywood Hero". Bloomberg.com – via www.bloomberg.com.
- "Killian Finale?". washingtonmonthly.com. 15 September 2004.
- "Truth or Consequences". texasmonthly.com. 21 January 2013.
- Levin, Josh (10 September 2004). "Rather Suspicious" – via Slate.
- "CBS News admits Bush documents can't be verified". NBC News. 21 September 2004.
- ^ Fleishman, Glenn (13 September 2017). "Meet the Font Detectives Who Ferret Out Fakery". Wired.com.
- Jenny Attiyeh (3 February 2005). "Who's got the power?". The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
Powerline, a conservative blog, was one of the first to raise questions about the authenticity of memos on President Bush's National Guard service, broadcast by CBS on "60 Minutes."
- "Rathergate". Frontline (American TV program). Public Broadcasting Service. 2007. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
Scott Johnson Power Line Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? I called that post "The 61st Minute,"
- ^ Dobbs, Michael; Kurtz, Howard (September 14, 2004). "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-02-20.
- "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush". The Washington Post. September 10, 2004. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
- "The X Files Of Lt. Bush". TIME. September 13, 2004. Archived from the original on January 4, 2013. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
- Phinney, Thomas (3 August 2006). "Bush Guard memos used Times Roman, not Times New Roman". The Typekit Blog. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
- Smith, Pohla (September 20, 2004). "Newsmaker: Joseph M. Newcomer / Computer specialist is in the thick of a pitched-font battle over documents". Post-Gazette.
- Reddy, D.R.; W. Broadley; L.D. Erman; R. Johnsson; J. Newcomer; G. Robertson; J. Wright (December 1972). "A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation". Information Processing Letters. 1 (6): 246–251. doi:10.1016/0020-0190(72)90021-X.
- Jonathan V. Last (2004-09-27). "What Blogs Have Wrought". Archived from the original on September 20, 2004.
- ^ "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers". Washington Post. 2004-09-14. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
- "History" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21.
- "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 10, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
- "Questions mount on Guard memos' authenticity". The Washington Times. September 11, 2004. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- Rosen, James (September 10, 2004). "FOX Interviews Commander's Son". FOX News. Retrieved 2006-11-27.
- Balleza, Maureen; Zernike, Kate (2004-09-15). "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: NATIONAL GUARD; Memos on Bush Are Fake But Accurate, Typist Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-01-05.
- "Exhibit 9G. Transcript of interview with Marian Carr Knox" (PDF). CBS News. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- "Bush Guard papers 'forged'". The Washington Times. September 12, 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-27.
- "Speaking Out". ABC News. September 17, 2004. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- "Records from the Texas Air National Guard" (PDF). September 29, 1972. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- "Bush Records". Dod.mil. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
- "glcq.com".
- Campenni, William (2005-01-25). "Exposing CBS". Washington Times. News World Communications, Inc. Retrieved 2007-09-21.
- "Article". Rantburg.com. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
- "Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4" (PDF). CBS News. p. 1. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
External links
Primary source documents
Links to large PDF documents.
The four CBS News Killian documents:
- Memorandum, May 4, 1972
- Memo to File, May 19, 1972
- Memorandum For Record, August 1, 1972
- Memo to File, August 18, 1973
The six USA Today Killian documents:
The CBS four and USA Today six are the documents supplied by Bill Burkett to Mary Mapes.
- Bush enlistment documents (USA Today) Page 31 is a 3 Nov 1970 memo from the office of Lt Col Killian on promotion of Lt Bush.
Peter Tytell's analysis from the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report, Appendix 4
News items
- "Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service" ABC News – September 9, 2004
- "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush" Washington Post – September 10, 2004
- "False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service" ABC News – September 10, 2004
- "Anatomy of a Forgery" American Spectator – September 10, 2004
- "Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush" Washington Post – September 11, 2004
- "Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story" Los Angeles Times – September 11, 2004
- "More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic" The Seattle Times – September 11, 2004
- "The X Files Of Lt. Bush: A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record" Time – September 13, 2004
- "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers" Washington Post – September 14, 2004
- Washington Post: A Pentagon memo next to one of CBS's Killian memo – September 14, 2004
- "Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags'" Washington Post – Wednesday, September 15, 2004
- "Dan Rather interviews Marion Carr Knox - September 15, 2004" Youtube
- "Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush" Los Angeles Times – September 15, 2004
- Boston Globe apologizes for taking misquoting two experts about memos
- "Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says' NY Times – September 15, 2004
- "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's" Washington Post – September 16, 2004
- "Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect" Washington Post – September 16, 2004
- "'Buckhead', who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney" Seattle Times – September 17, 2004
- The Paper Trail: A Comparison of Documents by The Washington Post print edition.
- "In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries" Washington Post – September 19, 2004
- Graphic comparison of all the CBS memos with officially released Killian memos Washington Post – September 19, 2004
- "CBS Says It Can't Vouch for Bush Documents" – New York Times – September 20, 2004
- "Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded" – timeline from USA Today – September 21, 2004
- "Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers" Wired, October 7, 2004
- Blog-gate Columbia Journalism Review
- Transcript of online Q&A with Mary Mapes, November 11, 2005, by washingtonpost.com
60 Minutes | |
---|---|
In the media | |
Related | |
Spin-offs | |
International versions |