Dan Rather forges ahead

From the New York Post this morning:

September 11, 2004 -- CBS anchor Dan Rather hung tough last night and
insisted there's no "definitive evidence" to refute the authenticity
of documents about President Bush's National Guard service — but a
growing number of document experts smell a hoax.
"If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we
will report it. So far there is none," Rather insisted.

He produced a man named Marcel Matley as the document vetter.

But Matley is primarily a handwriting expert whose expertise in
document evaluation has been challenged by the head of the American
Board of Forensic Document Examiners.

Matley spoke only about a signature and initials purported to be those
of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian — "they are his signatures" —
though two of the four memos are unsigned.

Rather also acknowledged CBS has no originals, only photocopies.

Allan Haley — a typeface expert at Agfa Monotype — said anyone who
claims to definitively authenticate a photocopy "is either guessing or
is a fool."



In another challenge to CBS, Killian's boss, retired Maj. Gen. Bobby
W. Hodges, told ABC News that he regards the documents as a computer
"fraud," never saw them in the 1970s and didn't validate them for CBS.

A senior CBS official had claimed to the Washington Post that Hodges
had validated the documents.

During his national news broadcast, Rather claimed "partisan political
operatives" are challenging the memos but omitted the fact that
Killian's widow and son dispute them.

The memos cast doubt on whether Bush fulfilled his Guard requirements.

Marjorie Connell — widow of Lt. Col. Killian, who died in 1984 — has
told ABC the documents are "very suspect" because her late husband
didn't type and was a big fan of the young Bush.

A key issue is whether the documents were made on a 1970s-era
typewriter or are forgeries done by computer because of their
proportional spacing and raised superscripts on ordinal numbers like
"111th."

Rather last night pointed to an undisputed document from Bush's
National Guard files and claimed it has a superscript, so they were
available by 1968.

But that document is in a different typeface and experts say it was
made on a different type of machine without proportional spacing so it
proves nothing.

"It could be a superscript, it could be a correction with a letter
showing through white-out, but in any case it's absolutely irrelevant
.. . . It doesn't prove a thing," said document expert Bill Flynn.

"It's a completely different technology," added the Phoenix-based
Flynn.

Flynn said it's "very unlikely" that the memos are legit, adding that
he knows of no typewriter fonts using proportionally spaced Roman type
with a raised "th" available in the 1970s.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

Flynn said it's "very unlikely" that the memos are legit, adding that
he knows of no typewriter fonts using proportionally spaced Roman type
with a raised "th" available in the 1970s.

Come off it, Dan, anyone who used a typewriter knew the trick of lifting the
roller a smidge (or lowering it) for sub (or super) script. You must not have
ever typed footnotes.

From: (Tom Cervo)
Date: 9/11/2004 5:30 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Flynn said it's "very unlikely" that the memos are legit, adding that
he knows of no typewriter fonts using proportionally spaced Roman type
with a raised "th" available in the 1970s.

Come off it, Dan, anyone who used a typewriter knew the trick of lifting the
roller a smidge (or lowering it) for sub (or super) script. You must not have
ever typed footnotes.

Sure it was a common trick, but I have never seen it done on official
documents.

For instance I was in the 55th ARRS and that was the proper way to type it
though I have seen 55 ARRS.

The type written headings were not used on official unit level documents. They
would have used the preprinted blue letter heading with USAF seal.

As for the CYA memo no person in his right mind would say that anywhere in a
memo. There are plenty of ways to write something without saying. People who
write term papers do it all the time to inflate word count.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 11 Sep 2004 22:30:08 GMT, (Tom Cervo) wrote:

Flynn said it's "very unlikely" that the memos are legit, adding that
he knows of no typewriter fonts using proportionally spaced Roman type
with a raised "th" available in the 1970s.

Come off it, Dan, anyone who used a typewriter knew the trick of lifting the
roller a smidge (or lowering it) for sub (or super) script. You must not have
ever typed footnotes.

And, anyone who used a typewriter knows that the trick results in a
sub or super that is the same size type face as the typewriter's, not
the smaller word processor font used for sub/supers.

But, the more important questions relate to why the commander is
writing memos about pressure from a superior who retired 18 months
earlier and hence was no longer above him.

Or, why is the commander ordering Bush for a physical just two weeks
into his 90 period of eligibility? Or, since when does a squadron
commander issue orders for flight physicals (they don't!)

Or why does the commander identify a CYA memo as a CYA? If you're
really trying to cover your ass you don't point it out in the subject
line.

Or, why is the commander writing orders to a subordinate that he has
already approved for temporary posting to another state in a unit
which at the time had no airplanes to fly and over which he had no
authority?

Or, why does the commander's wife and son deny that he could type,
that he was a memo writer or that he had any problem with Lt. Bush who
he had commended very publicly on the record the year before?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"Tom Cervo" wrote in message
...
Flynn said it's "very unlikely" that the memos are legit, adding that
he knows of no typewriter fonts using proportionally spaced Roman type
with a raised "th" available in the 1970s.

Come off it, Dan, anyone who used a typewriter knew the trick of lifting
the
roller a smidge (or lowering it) for sub (or super) script. You must not
have
ever typed footnotes.

In smaller case than the rest of the document? Not to mention that anytime I
ever did that with an IBM Selectric, when I tried to go back to the original
line I invariable found the following type to be just a *smidgen* out of
vertical alignment with what I had done before.

Brooks

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

But, the more important questions relate to why the commander is
writing memos about pressure from a superior who retired 18 months
earlier and hence was no longer above him.

Or, why is the commander ordering Bush for a physical just two weeks
into his 90 period of eligibility? Or, since when does a squadron
commander issue orders for flight physicals (they don't!)

Or why does the commander identify a CYA memo as a CYA? If you're
really trying to cover your ass you don't point it out in the subject
line.

Or, why is the commander writing orders to a subordinate that he has
already approved for temporary posting to another state in a unit
which at the time had no airplanes to fly and over which he had no
authority?

Or, why does the commander's wife and son deny that he could type,
that he was a memo writer or that he had any problem with Lt. Bush who
he had commended very publicly on the record the year before?

All of your points are right on the mark!

I just don't see how a person like Dan Rather could be so easily duped by
these forgeries. They weren't even originals! Hell even I can cut out someone's
signature and put it on any letter I want with just a Xerox machine. Today
I would just use my scanner and add it to my MS Word document.

No, I think Dan Rather was putting his reputation behind a known
forgery, to give it credence, and to hurt the Republican party. I hope
it now results in his finally being put out to pasture (which should have
happened 10 years ago anyway). Same with the other scum-bags on
60 minutes, who are always making a mountain out of a mole hill.

"Tom Cervo" wrote
Flynn said it's "very unlikely" that the memos are legit, adding that
he knows of no typewriter fonts using proportionally spaced Roman type
with a raised "th" available in the 1970s.

Come off it, Dan, anyone who used a typewriter knew the trick of lifting the
roller a smidge (or lowering it) for sub (or super) script. You must not have
ever typed footnotes.

Really!?? How do you get the font size to change?

No, the first typewriter to do that was the Selectric, as it had scripts of a
smaller font on the typing ball.

What trick did you use on your typewriter to get it to do proportional
fonts - Do the terms "pica" and "elite" mean anything to you?

Jack


"Tom Cervo" wrote in message
...
Flynn said it's "very unlikely" that the memos are legit, adding that
he knows of no typewriter fonts using proportionally spaced Roman type
with a raised "th" available in the 1970s.

Come off it, Dan, anyone who used a typewriter knew the trick of lifting
the
roller a smidge (or lowering it) for sub (or super) script. You must not
have
ever typed footnotes.

"Bob Coe" wrote in message
news:%JM0d.23965$ni.13950@okepread01...


I just don't see how a person like Dan Rather could be so easily duped by
these forgeries. They weren't even originals! Hell even I can cut out
someone's
signature and put it on any letter I want with just a Xerox machine.
Today
I would just use my scanner and add it to my MS Word document.



I give him the benefit of the doubt - he saw what he wanted to see.


No, I think Dan Rather was putting his reputation behind a known
forgery, to give it credence, and to hurt the Republican party. I hope
it now results in his finally being put out to pasture (which should have
happened 10 years ago anyway). Same with the other scum-bags on
60 minutes, who are always making a mountain out of a mole hill.



I'm sure he has no qualms about hurting the Republican party, but I still
think it unlikely he knew.

Jarg

Subject: Dan Rather forges ahead
From: "Jarg"
Date: 9/11/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: m

"Bob Coe" wrote in message
news:%JM0d.23965$ni.13950@okepread01...


I just don't see how a person like Dan Rather could be so easily duped by
these forgeries. They weren't even originals! Hell even I can cut out
someone's
signature and put it on any letter I want with just a Xerox machine.
Today
I would just use my scanner and add it to my MS Word document.



I give him the benefit of the doubt - he saw what he wanted to see.


No, I think Dan Rather was putting his reputation behind a known
forgery, to give it credence, and to hurt the Republican party. I hope
it now results in his finally being put out to pasture (which should have
happened 10 years ago anyway). Same with the other scum-bags on
60 minutes, who are always making a mountain out of a mole hill.



I'm sure he has no qualms about hurting the Republican party, but I still
think it unlikely he knew.

Jarg

Nothing to know. These were the real thing. The rest is just the usual Neocon
spin.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer