CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised “th.”
Critics claim typewriters didn’t have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.
So much for the triumphant superscript “th” that was supposed to be nonexistent then. It existed, but the one used in the memos was likely not possible then, unless the typewriter used for the memos was an obscure model or someone went to some lengths to produce the superscript “th” in that format. Not something I would have done personally. It would be a little strange to do so for a memo for the file. That said, the claim that “th” was not possible on a typewriter then is complete bullshit. So lets slow down and get it straight. One would think that the expert debunkers being heralded all over Bushie blogs would have known something like this. I ask this honestly because I find it strange that those who’ve shrieked about that the “th” was impossible have continously used the word “experts” in their rantings, yet these experts didn’t know this. The issue now is, what model typewriter, if it was a typewriter, could have created these memos with these versions of the superscript “th”? Personally, I don’t think it was a typewriter. But, assuming it was a typewriter (which I don’t believe), read on.
Note this, the superscript “th” on the suspect memo is in a different typeset than those used on the other Guard forms, meaning it would have had to have come from a different typewriter or made via computer. If the suspected fake memos were made by an officer or his administrative aide, separate from the personnel office where most of the Guard documents would have been handled one would not necessarily expect them to have been made on the same typewriter or with the same ball.
The fact that the typeset is different from other Guard documents is not proof of anything either, so lets put that myth to rest. During my tenure at the Headquarters and Service Battalion S-1 and Adjutant offices of the Second Force Service Support Group, we possessed four different brands of typewriters, with multiple different typesets available at any given time. It wasn’t uncommon for pages in service record books to contain entries made in several typesets. Even someone without the “expert” title should be able to grok this concept. However, the charges of proportional spacing and kerning have not been dealt with by CBS and that leaves the authenticity of the memos seriously in doubt. It doesn’t verify they are fake, but it sure punches a bunch of holes in their credibility. That said, when you take into consideration that the memos examined by the “experts” are paper copies of electronic documents scanned from other paper copies you are left with a less than ideal analysis. The purported originals (assuming they exist somewhere) have yet to be examined by anyone, let alone an “expert.” That said, I will view their authenticity with complete skepticism until some originals appear for hands-on expert analysis.
Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.
But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.
Some of the Bushie folks need to stop jacking each other for a second and get their shit together. See my comments above. The font had existed for decades prior to Bush’s Guard days. How likely is it that an “expert” wouldn’t know this? The question now is the proportional spacing and kerning and what model typewriter, or ball or striking was allegedly used to type the memos, if it was indeed a typewriter.
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.
Oh my. Exactly why would someone think a document that had been photocopied, then scanned and altered via electronic formatting would be the best source to use for an “expert” forensic examination? Does this mean that there is no possibility that the documents are false. Not at all. Its very likely, as the proportional spacing and kerning is a credibility serious issue. But it certainly means that the use of electronic copies of photocopied documents traded about the internet are not an ideal source for a so-called scientific analysis. Does that mean I trust the memos? No. But neither do I trust experts who make blanket claims that superscript “th” and “times new roman” only existed after the advent of the personal computer. That’s just plain lying.
Certain people need to stop talking about how “proud” they are of their friends for defending Bush from the evil anti-Americans who dare question his credibility and think about this for a second. Something stinks around here and it ain’t just the Potomac River. As stop that train also points out, there a few more peculiar aspects of this scandal that make it seem suspicious from an entirely different angle than the DNC.
Update: Max Sawicky spends his two cents on this issue and LinkMeister points out that another expert has debunked the debunkers. Forgerygate continues.