Ok now that I've seen the documents
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ard_091404.gif

I am by no means a 'document' expert, but after having used MSword quite a bit, its even apparent to me these were made on MS word. I don't think there can be ANY doubt about this, I didn't know how pathetic this scam was.

So whats your theory on WHY CBS would run with this story?

So you're saying you posted 27 times (6 more than anyone else) in the CBS NEWS INVESTIGATION thread and you hadn't even looked at the documents in question?

And now you focus on the variable-width font question which has already been demonstrated to be nonsense.

You've got some balls.

CBS didn't care if they were fake, they wanted to hurt Bush. That's what I think.

I saw one of them, but it was magnified in pdf format, but not being an expert I didn't decide to have a close look. I figured it was something technical not glaringly obvious and amazingly stupid. I gave CBS SOME credit, obviously it wasn't due.

Obviously our titled left who defended the documents must not have looked at them either, as its so glaringly MSword.

This also means you completely ignored all of the points which were brought up demonstrating how the technical "evidence" that they were faked was bogus.

So, in essence, you read somewhere (a blog) that they were fake and instead of questioning the source of THAT information, you decided to question CBS and ignore some other information (from a different blog).

You're just as bad as you claim CBS to be, Ustwo. You either had an agenda in posting 27 times about the fake memos or you didn't care enough to look past exactly what you wanted them to be.

If you had any credibility around here, you just killed it.

Heh, God, you just completely ignored everything in that thread. Ooh and nice poll too.

It's obvious they were made on MSWord?
You know nothing and are just parroting someone else who was trying to discredit them.
Type in 111th in ms. See where the th lines up. Not like in that document. Not even close. The th does not go past the top of the numbers in MSWord in superscripting. In the CBS document the th intersects the upper line of the numbers. Even manually shifting the th higher than the line (which takes additional steps that most people don't know about) keeps them visibly different from what the CBS document has.

If you try to compare the font on the CBS documen to MSWord's Times New Roman there are many significant differences. So many claims that it was made in MSWord are laughable.

I don't know if these are real or not, they may be reproductions of original documents. But I DO know they were not made in word. If they are forgeries, they were done using a typewriter. Smudges, imperfect strikes and the failure for all letters to line up on a razor edge makes this obivious to anyone who actually looked at them critically.

As our newest document + Mircosoft Word expert, Ustwo, maybe you can shed some light for us here - which of these two documents was produced in Microsoft Word a week ago and which was produced by an IBM typewriter in the early 1970's?

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...i=87217,00.gif

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...i=87218,00.gif

For you, the difference should be glaringly obvious.

all wrangling aside... does anyone here on TFP still believe the memos to be genuine?

I haven't really followed this story closely, but I wonder why MS Word was considered the culprit, and not the endless number of other programs? Can anyone shed any light? I suspect you can make a very convincing typewriter forgery in a LaTeX system for example.

I don't know. I am not a document expert. I can absolutely say though, it wasn't done with a computer. If they are forgeries someone went to the expense to find a period typewriter to do them on.

If they are not genuine, they may be reproductions to hide who released them. The secretary has already said that all of these documents contain information she has typed up for Killian before. Because of that I believe them not to just be some documents someone made up to slander Bush. The info is real so they must have come from real sources.

Other than that, I will wait for experts to certify them.

Maybe I should get my magnifying glass.

Also the document I posted appears to be the default font for MS word, I'm sure if you played with MSword you could make it look like a very expensive typewriter the ANG would not have used :lol:

Saying you could get MS word to look like an older typewriter means nothing, what matters are the documents CBS used, which appear clearly to be MSword default settings. Also there are obvious differences between the two samples you posted. Now did you have a point?

Edit: For fun I typed the first long line using MSword, Spacing between the two is identical, including the TAB space. Cute :)

HEHEHE so does the title. Try it for yourself.

Can anyone answer this question for me: Why is is that every time i hear about this story i keep hearing in the back of my head "hanging chads, hanging chads"?

Yes I did. And I made it rather well. But you're not interested in "points" or "facts" or "evidence". You heard a rumor and you instantly believed it - to the point that you completely ignored any and all facts disproving the rumor for over a week while you posted 27 times.

Your agenda to paint Rather in a bad light/Bush in a good light or your thorough incompetence. Take your pick.

Not genuine.
Given the way that the Repubs made a big deal out of Kerry's military experience, Im not surprised the Demos responded like this against Bush's military experience. This typifies the Demos entire campaign strategy: "Follow the Leader".

First it was: 'THIS IS JOHN KERRY AND I APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE'.
Now this. :lol:

"follow the leader" precisely....how long was it that Bush was in office before they were yelling "impeach him." Funny shit.

and i'm sorry...who made a big deal of Kerry's military experience?"

about a year and a half. Right about the time it looked like he was full of shit regarding the war rationale.

and the conservatives made a big deal out of kerry's military experience, even before he was nominated.

if you can't even remember back 6 months, how can you conceptualize the larger context of the past 4 years?

you never listened to President Bush's rationale for war, and you never will, that much is clear.

Go find yourself a little soundbite to Kerry's opening line in his speech at the democratic convention....something to the effect of "Reporting for duty, again." What a joke, and your still gonna tell me he's not the one making a big deal of his valiant 4 months in Vietnam, where he racked up 3 puple hearts, one silver star, and something that had bronze in it...on a fucking swift boat.

a lil reminder...the average tour in Vietnam was 18 months, and he managed all this in 4 months. So it's either Kerry should have single handedly won that war, or he's a fucking joke. You'll never come to terms with the latter, nor will you come to terms with the correct answer to this poll. My condolences.

Ummmm WHO made a big deal out of Kerry's military experience?


KERRY made a big deal out of his experience, in fact its the ONLY thing he had going for him. Its the reason democratic voters switched to him during the primaries. Dean 'wasn't delectable' but Kerry is a hero!


edit: Laugh, delectable = electable, mmmm MS word spellchecker :lol:

there is no correct answer to this poll.

[why cast pearls before the swine]

"Covering My Ass in Advance", by John F. Kerry, future Democratic nominee for President.

I have a diety?...killer.

the more i think about it...that shit is fuckin sweet!!

and smooth, just out of curiousity, who are these conservatives you watch and read that you hold in such high regard? Aside from McCain, i can't remeber the last public figure representing republican theory that liberals made out to be anything more than some christian right war mongering wack-job. Chalk me up as one of them. Also chalk me up as one who never gave you any indication religion was a part of my life, but you stereotyped me as one who's religion defined their philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth. And i thought you guys hated "stereotypes."

In Rush Limbaugh's words "You have become what you hate."

..i think i've already extended my condolences.

Absolutely correct.

I am also very concerned that the fringe elements (read: illogical trains of thought) of the conservatives have been pushed into the mainstream - creating an environment of debate which leads to nothing but complete nonsense.

When the most vocal of conservative voices on TFP consistently practices that which he consistently lambasts - blindness due to partisanship - and if he becomes to foundation of conservative debate - the entire process of conservative/liberal debate towards better understanding is fundamentally destroyed.

We need one less Ustwo and one more irateplatypus around here.

Actually that was after Bill Clinton was elected and about Bill Clinton, my how his tune changes eh?

Flippity Floppity Floop.

Opie, we all have respect for irate. He's a different breed, that's right...he's different from YOU. He's different from me. He's different from UsTwo. You're approach to politics is no different than any of ours. I happen to agree with UsTwo, and UsTwo thankfully has more patience than me. For every UsTwo we have, count yourselves....every one of you has the same approach to politics, so don't try to put yourself on some higher plain. He has as much right to be here as anyone, and puts more thought into his post than most -just not apoligetically, so quit complaining.

The document may not have been produced on Word, it could have been produced on a word processor or a very, very expensive typewriter, although, most typewriters have what we call "Courier" as the font that types out on the paper, not Times New Roman. I looked at my Dad's discharge papers a few days after this stuff came up because I was curious (and bored as hell) and the type from his papers that he received in 1992, is consistent with the document on the left that Ustwo put up. The "th" is not in a superscript, and I figure if the Air Force hadn't changed their typewriting systems in twenty years, then why the inconsistencies? Personally, I think CBS did it to get ratings, because they are floundering, you know what they say, "Doesn't matter if you're getting good press or bad press, as long as your getting press."

The evidence of Ustwo's posts demostrates that you are incorrect.

He is consistently the first to stop presenting any information and start resorting to "you're just a blind partisan" or "you're incapable of understanding right now because you're so angry - maybe after the election" or "this is probably too advanced for TFP". And he is the first to bitch about it when anyone else does the same exact thing.

He has no desire to debtate - which requires listening to other people. He only wants you to either agree, or accept his declaration that you are an idiot.

His combination of pure arrogance and lack of any semblance of a logical thought process results in more stupid threads on this forum than any one else. And this is not true because he is a conservative and most around here are liberal - I have had debates with conservatives here which do not lead to the nonsense he champions.

27 times! he posted on this memo topic and he clearly did not bother to read any of the responses he received. And the result is this stupid thread right here. Pathetic.

Once again, i win by not even playing.

I ain't UsTwo's bodyguard, i'm just saying.....UsTwo seems to me like a pretty smart guy, and articulates some great points, and if you really wanted to "debate" you'd be able to look past what you see as "arrogance" and address the points he's making.

Between Irate and OneTime, I'm pretty proud of the conservative representation we have on this board....but UsTwo is a breath of fresh air, a little "taste of your own medicine" if you will.

where are we going for our next beer filtherton?

"[why cast pearls before the swine]"

man i've heard tin-foil hat clicking heals together straw man debate tactics thrown all over the place.

What would were political science teacher call that one?

You did just reply to yourself 3 times....

Any minute now....

Take a look at the dates on the documents, as well. We are expected to believe that the 111th had an expensive electronic typewriter with superscript and Times New Roman capabilities in May of 72, and then DOWNGRADED them to shitty typewriters in September of 73 and have been using the shitty typewriters ever since? Right. Seeing those two documents next to each other should be enough to prove to anyone that the second is a forgery -- except those who are so foaming at the mouth with rage towards Bush that they can't see straight.

CBS did this for ratings, and to try to strike a blow against Bush. Rather's daughter is a very active Democrat, and was friendly with one of the "sources" that Rather had on the air. CBS has lost any shred of objectivity or credibility in my mind.

I believe they are allowed to have more than one typewriter on premises. And are not required to throw away old ones when they receive new.
Someone, preferably one of those who are hostile against the CBS documents, use MS word to reproduce any two lines of the CYA document and post it here so I can post the original next to it and tear apart all of the typographic differences that prove that MS doesn't have the font used in the document.

Please, this is a very real challenge and I don't think any of you have the cojones.

Ya know...I've been reading the politics board for some time and i think i have come to a conclusion:

UsTwo reminds me of Bush...he actually believes what he's saying...


The scary part is that there are those who follow suit...

I think the most logical explanations are as follows.

1. The documents are forgeries.

or.....

2. A wormhole opened up in space and time, and a PC with MSword was sucked into that worm hole. It appeared on Mr. Killian's desk. No one was able to see it except for him of course being it was magically cloaked. He decided to test this thing by typing out some nasty things about president Bush but accidentally got the dates wrong, and used improper terms. Oh did I mention a printer was sucked back in time too? Anyways he managed to print it out, and then the worm holed opened up again and sucked the PC back with the documents. These were then found and given to CBS news.

Occams razor be damned! Sure everyone involved says they are fake, sure the general mentioned in them said he never helped out Bush. Sure the supposed writes own family says its bullshit but its LIES ALL LIES. CBS is innocent.

That's not entirely implausible. In fact, tip off Dan Rather and I'm sure he'd stand firmly behind this theory.

And then they mimic him.

People do look past his pathetic and misguided arrogance and they attempt to debate him - and what happens? He tells them they're 'not ready for the truth' or they're 'blinded by partisanship'.

Why he doesn't just cut to the chase and put "If you don't take my posts as the god's honest undeniable truth, you are a fucking idiot" in his sig, I'll never know - but that's assuredly the sum total amount of room he leaves in his contributions to a discussion.

You know Opie sometimes I get tired of beating people with a logic stick. When I do a multi-page original post and someone doesn't even take the time to read it before responding with the usual liberal line of crap, you will have to forgive me if I don't debate the same worthless, uninformed talking points spouted off by individuals with less knowledge of the subject then is required for an intelligent debate. I've always had amazingly high reading comprehension scores and perhaps that’s just a gift and I should take more time to let this material filter into some peoples skulls. Then again, in situations where someone posts a arrogant response which has already been answered in the original post, my patients wears thin, and I find its best to wait for a response more worthy of my time.

Umm...I think that's exactly what opie was trying to say about you, ustwo :)

Thank you for perfectly demonstrating my point.

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Picture...rd-overlay.gif

Microsoft Word v. "C-BS Original"

High-Res Version

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/19may72-cbs.gif
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/19may72-word.gif

"It’s very telling that the automatically word-wrapped MS Word version exactly matches the line breaks in the CBS “original” for 11 lines, with not a single discrepancy. And the last line does not automatically wrap ... until you type the final period.

If you look closely at the CBS “original” you can see that there’s quite a bit of distortion and shearing, probably caused by whatever technique was used to artificially “age” the document. So the overlay technique is not as effective with this one; but if you overlay them and nudge one of them by single pixels from side to side, words and lines come into exact focus in different parts of the image."

Rathergate Debunked

Not only could someone have attempted to artificially age the document, it was photocopied / faxed / re-faxed / re-photocopied several times, which would further deteriorate the quality. This makes me wonder how involved the DNC and Kerry campaign are in this attempt.

That is classic "Liberal" thinking. Us have-nots shouldn't be "gifted" with your obviously superior intellect. We's just not dat smart fer understooding it.

Computer fonts were originally made to mimic classic typewriter styles, as they were already in use and could be scanned in to create a font set. Hell, I can buy a piece of software that will let me make a font set of my own handwriting.

The fact that a computer program such as Word is a newer technology that essentially mimics and replaces an older technological device (typewriter) should not be ignored in this case. Computer keyboards followed the same design as typewriters, despite the fact that typewriter keyboards were designed that way for efficiency in the machine, not for our hands. Many different styles of key arrangment in computer keyboards are still in use to this day, but the "QWERTY" style is undoubtedly the overwhelming majority.

I don't think the fact that I can use a $500 piece of year-2004 typing software to mimic the font style on a pre-existing old-as-hell typewriter is very impressive at all, or very telling. I can take a photo and edit it so it looks like you're boning Bea Arthur, but that doesn't mean it happened.

Quick blurb in Ustwo's defense:

Its amazing Ustwo keeps his head as cool as he does on this board. He is a smart ass, but I have yet to see him ever be offensive or out of line (without instigation). I have to give him credit for ever posting at all in the midst of so many who disagree with him. Tilted Politics is pretty much a liberal/democrat support group (lynch mob at times).

Now back to the topic at hand. I voted for the first option.

This whole situation is really baffeling to me. Even if these documents are true, who the hell cares? All the fuss and drama over the authenticity of these documents has really overshadowed the actual content of the documents and their accusations against Bush. As soon as I saw what CBS was trying to "uncover" about Bush I laughed. Why the hell is this a story? Who cares? Its trivial.

The funny thing is despite the obvious nature of the fonts, the fonts are just the first problem with the memos.

The fonts just gave it away, but the language is wrong, people sited in them were wrong, the people who are sited say they are not true.

Some people keep grasping, looking for that 1 in 1 million chance they are not forgeries, but its getting rather pathetic.

Sorry, I'm not buying the "poor conservatives in the TFP world of liberals" excuse. There are plenty of conservatives on these forums that aren't as absurdly arrogant or blatantly contradictory as Ustwo. He CONSTANTLY instigates. Even to the degree that he pre-instigates (see his comment about any healthcare topic being too advanced for TFP BEFORE it even got started).

If you give him credit for ever posting, you must hold the other conservatives who do not position themselves as godly geniuses and who are honestly here for debate (instead of Ustwo's self-admitted goal of destroying liberalism), to be literal Saints.

To paraphrase: I am not as you say i am, in fact, look, i am exactly as you say i am.

The thing that bugs me the most about the second document is the lack of consistency. In some spots they superscript the "th" while in others they do not. The first document consistently does not superscript them. Additionally, in one spot they refer to it as "111 F.L.S." while in another "111th F.L.S." with the "th" superscripted.

While I have never been a military typist I have, most assuredly, been indoctrinated into the military protocol of consistency. Perhaps it's a fluke as I know plenty of mistakes are made that fall outside of SOP but it strikes me as odd.

Risking getting into trouble here..... for those who say the TFP has more libs than Conservatives ..... this thread was built on hate and the mods have done nothing to it. A "Lib" started one similar and his was taken out. Now then WHO gets preferential treatment on these boards? Who can start fights and act like he's above everyone else and yet others get in trouble? just fact based questions just dispelling the "poor Conservatives posting on a Lib board BS.

BTW voluntarily this is my last post in politics. I'm tired of bullies having to ignore people, getting into trouble with mods while a complaint I lodged got ignored and I got told basically tough shit and getting attacked for trying to express my freedom of speech. As a friend messaged me and said.... it just ain't worth the hassle.

So bully away and watch everyone who truly has things to say leave because "the poor Conservatives are posting and trying their hardest to not fight with the nasty Libs who outnumber them here."

There are plenty of examples of threads being closed on both sides. This thread has remained relatively cordial. I don't see how this was "built on hate" in the least.

That's too bad pan. I will miss our conversations. There is little doubt there are more libs than conservatives and I know for a fact that many conservatives refuse to post on this board because they are immediately jumped on by many "lib" regulars. I myself have been insulted on more occasions than I care to recall. I've lodged complaints that went unanswered as well and was recently rebuked by a liberal leaning mod who felt I didn't have a right to try to "self regulate" the board (which it was my understanding they were trying to push for). Obviously this is no panacea.

I'd say goodbye but you have had me on ignore since last spring :rolleyes:

Wow, that sounds almost EXACTLY like what we know about Bush+Co's comments on Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear technology: that an expert (the CIA) repeatedly warned them that the information was not anywhere near solid and admonished them not to use it.

But they did.

For Rather's sake - I only hope the conservatives don't completely destroy him like they have destroyed Bush. Then again, Rather's blunder assuredly doesn't have the magnitude of import that Bush's had ... so I think the conservatives will probably not feel the need to completely trash Rather's rep like they have with Bush.

This is a classic example of distorting facts to draw a similarity to two dissimilar events. And you wonder why I sometimes give up?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=91

Uh no. It is a classic example of an analogy.

From the article you posted headline: Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

The article points out correctly that (assuming) Bush didn't know the information was undeniably false and therefore he did not lie when he used it.

But other facts not contained in your article demonstrate that the CIA warned him the information was weak repeatedly - but he used it anyway. That doesn't mean he was a liar, but it does mean he used information which he was told was weak.

Exactly like Rather.

But your response is a classic example of a redefinition: analogy becomes distortion of facts, even when no facts have been distorted.

And just to be clear - I don't wonder why you sometimes "give up". I don't see you attempting "to start" anything other than an argument.

Thanks for taking me up on it, now please go here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=134
That should be sufficient to show that the original in no way matches a computer attempt at TNR.

All due respect superbelt, not sufficient as far as Im concerned. You really should read the Washington Post article. You know, I could care less whether or not Bush got preferential treatment in military, it wouldn't surprise me, but I don't like when the media tries to run a smear campaign with the goal of trying to sway public opinion like this. Its despicable and one of the reasons I despise ego-maniacal, power-tripping journalists.

Oh please.

What a load of crap.

What is so glaringly MSWord about it? That it was done in a Variable space font? Hint: MSWord is not the only way to get variable length fonts.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=69788

:rolleyes:

You don;t think its galringly WordPerfect or maybe OpenOffice maybe huh?

And lets not forget Acrobat...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh and by and by and by and by the way, I don't see how your post proves it to be "glaringly MSWord". But maybe its time you get some corrective sunglasses, you know, to take care of the glare.

You did read the whole thread?

You did try it out yourself (type the document using MS word default fonts)?

You did keep up and know that the default MS word font was NOT used by any typewriter of the day?

You do know you could edit and not double post?

Additional graphic from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ocs_091804.gif

Sorry to dissapoint, but yes I have.

Yes some of it, did not look the same. I also typede it in using OpenOffice, and that looked closer to it than MSWord, but still not quite there.

Where did you obtain your level of expertise as far as recognizing MSWord documents? The glare is not coming through to me.

Have you noticed that that is not the default MSWord font? Have you realised that Times New Roman (MS Word default font) and variants, have been in use for many many years in print, and on type-writers? Its not unique to MSWord, not even almost, and it did not originate from MSWord either.

I have books that were printed in the 70s/80s that are set in this font.

In fact I even remember old 16bit versions of MSWorks to have had this font as well, long before Word ever existed. But I guess this all must have occured through the same worm-hole you were talking about. Talked to NASA yet? I am sure their Breakthrough Propulsion Phycisists would be greatly interested.

You mean like you do? I have seen you double post on more than one occasion, Mr. "I never double post".

In fact you created a new thread not so long ago in which you double posted immediately after the thread's initial post.

But I am sure that you had a very very VERY good reason for doing so.

FWIW, my comments had nothing to do with a thread being closed. They only dealt with comments made in an open thread by a mod and my attempts to report posts that were clearly defamatory towards me. Since I've been told in the past that rather than reply to insulting posts I should report them I attempted to do so. Not receiving any response and no alterations being made to the reported posts proved this method of regulation to be ineffective. The mod comment was in response to my attempt at "self regulating" a thread rather than relying on mods to clean up after us politics posters. Apparently that was no longer the proper thing to do either.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...own/powell.jpg

"Up in Smoke"
:D