Why the National Guard Docs are Real!

Update [2004-9-11 19:48:54 by kj]: You might as well disregard most of what I wrote as I confused the Electronic Composer available in 1975 with the regular composer available in 1966. I've been spending hours researching these supposedly fake documents and have come to the conclusion that the memos could have definitely been written in the early 1970s.  I've found a typewriter that could do it.  

The IBM Selectric Composer, first marketed in 1966, is capable of producing a scalable memo in the particular font we see.  The memos are available here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml.  The manual for that typewriter can be found here:  http://ibmcomposer.org/docs/Electronic%20Composer%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf.

The font available for that typewriter that is used in the memo is called "Aldine Roman".  See a replication of it here called Bembo (you have to scroll down a bit): http://graphicdesign.sfcc.spokane.cc.wa.us/tutorials/process/type_basics/type_families.htm.  You'll see that it better matches the font in the Killian memos.  Times Roman in Word has too fine of serifs for what is created in the memos.  The fonts are very similar however.  If you go to page 168 (173 of the pdf), you'll see that Aldine Roman is available in three sizes: 8, 10, and 12.  The superscript is made with the 8-point size element font ball.  A secretary conceivably took the time to insert the superscript in two of the memos, but not the other two.  It would add about 30 seconds to the job.  Instructions on how to superscript can be found on page 51 and a couple other pages.  The machine was complicated to learn but there is no reason it couldn't have been used in the National Guard.  I've seen these things at Universities and for sale as surplus from State Governments.  

I've read around the blogosphere that these scalable font typewriters were too expensive.  First off, this is the Pentagon were talking about.  They spend hundreds of dollars on toilet seats.  And second, these machines were nice for the time but this would have been used 6 years after it first came out, so I'm sure it's value wasn't all that much.

My last point on the memo is that all you have to do is look at it to see that it isn't something Word produces.  The lines and words are a bit uneven.  The serifs are blockier.  Perhaps through some sort of aging process, you could replicate this effect.  But who the hell is stupid enough to forge a typewritten document with Microsoft Word?  Find a typewriter and do it.  

Really, the only way to put this to rest however is for someone to drag out the typewriter that could have produced this memo, and reproduce it.  Right now the Right-wing Bloggers are all over the discreding of the whole National Guard story and it will basically become conventional wisdom without a serious challenge.

I also reject the stupid idea that Rove planted this.  He's not as smart as so many make him out to be.  Holding Rove up as this super evil genius only serves the false image of Bush as unbeatable.  Respect Rove, but don't fear him.

•  amen on rove

  He's no genius; he's a big nerd who likes to feed the genius meme by talking about 19th century politics.  He sent his candidate to freaking California in the days before the election, and lost to Al Gore.

  We should never, ever feed that meme.  A lot of uncontrollable shit (not to mention flat-out mistakes) happens in campaigns, and then each side spins it.  The perception of having a supposed genius on their side just helps their spin take hold.  Yeah, they meant to do that!  Momentum to them, every time.

  Rove ain't all that, and he's in over his head, and Bush is going to lose.

  (That last part wasn't spin--that's truth).

  by jsavage on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 01:03:14 AM PST

  •  rove

    I'm with you on Rove not being a genius, but many suspect he bugged his own office once in order to frame his opponent.  If this turns out to be forged, you have to suspect Rove--this is right out of his playbook.  I was amazed at how quickly stories of forgeries were planted on the internet.  I wouldn't rule it out.

    by john doh on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 02:49:21 AM PST

    •  forgery

      The speed of the forgery accusations doesn't surprise me.  When I saw the docs on the screen on 60 Minutes the font immediately stood out.  I thought maybe CBS retyped it.

      Of course if I was making a forgery I would at least try to make it look like something produced on normal equipment at the time since that would be the first thing people would notice. Besides, look at the "4" characters.  It's got that open side at the top.  Times Roman and Times New Roman don't do that.

      by runchadrun on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 05:13:26 AM PST

•  Delegate

  Did you try it?

  by Armando on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 01:06:18 AM PST

•  I agree that Times Roman isn't the right font

  although it lines up the same in Word, the font isn't quite the same when you zoom in.  Also, the uneven nature of the letters in the memo indicate that it was typed with a typewriter.

  But I'm not expert.  I'm sure CBS is covering their own ass right now double-checking this stuff.  If the docs were faked or retyped at some point in the 1980s then we will find out. Maybe Killian himself retyped them in the early 1980s after Bush's dad was elected President.

  Whoever got these documents to CBS should have access to other Killiam memos.  Why don't they release those?  Or maybe the real Killian memos were in Bush's military file, and somebody in the White House decided to make cheap forgeries of them and feed them to CBS in the hopes of later debunking them.  But that doesn't make sense for a variety of reasons, number one being that who would expect CBS to believe forgeries that weren't even typed on a typewriter?

  Whatever.  We'll find out soon enough.  CBS will have their hat in their hand if they are wrong.  But maybe they will have to admit that while the documents are suspect, the information in them is backed up by other sources.

  by existenz on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 01:09:35 AM PST

  •  Wow

    This is just a general point (not a comment on your comment, existenz), but this is the damn bizarrest topic I've ever seen come up on DKos that got discussed and Googled so extensively. Wow.

    by DavidNYC on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 01:16:07 AM PST

  •  Counter spin - Creating Myths

    The wingers/thugs/SCLM aren't interested in the Authenticity of the docs, they're only interested in creating a MYTH to deflate their impact.

    Remember the Wellstone Funeral Propaganda - one lie after another - Chapter 25 of Franken's book.

    I mean wasn't Saddam the head of Al Qaedia??  Aren't the WMDs buried in Syria??
    Isn't the economy Strong, and getting Stronger??
    Didn't Bush always say how valuable the 9-11 commission was??
    Didn't most of Bush's tax cuts go to the bottom of the economic scale??
    Didn't Bush bring democrats and republicans together to pass the texas bill of rights??
    Didn't the "Fighter pilot" declare Mission Accomplished??

    by Al Rodgers on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 02:20:09 AM PST

•  It's Official

  Any election that has me looking at thirty year old typewriter manuals at 1:30 in the morning means that this is the most stupid election ever.

  by LeftCoastTimm on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 01:34:07 AM PST

  •  And the most important ever

    n/t

    by rogun on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 01:50:30 AM PST

  •  kj's diary says it's an IBM Selectric, I had one

    kj's diary shows that there was a machine that could produce this font. The IBM Selectric Composer.  In addition he found the fount that closely matches it that was used by these machines. it's a relative of Times New Roman called Bembo.  You have to go to his post and it's in a pdf file . I have already checked a lot of it wuth the CYA Aug. 18,1973 document and it does seem to match. Link to Aug. 18 doc

    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

    Link below with some of his material.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/35559/9134

    The IBM Selectric Composer, first marketed in 1966, is capable of producing a scalable memo in the particular font we see.  The memos are available here:

     The manual for that typewriter can be found here:

     The manual for that typewriter can be found here:  http://ibmcomposer.org/docs/Electronic%20Composer%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf.

    The font available for that typewriter that is used in the memo is called "Aldine Roman".  See a replication of it here called Bembo (you have to scroll down a bit): http://graphicdesign.sfcc.spokane.cc.wa.us/tutorials/process/type_basics/type_families.htm.  You'll see that it better matches the font in the Killian memos.  Times Roman in Word has too fine of serifs for what is created in the memos.  The fonts are very similar however.  If you go to page 168 (173 of the pdf), you'll see that Aldine Roman is available in three sizes: 8, 10, and 12.  The superscript is made with the 8-point size element font ball.

    I went to college in the mid to late sixties.  The first year I had a used manual typewriter.  Cost $40. I worked that summer I bought an IBM Selectric.  It cost either a couple hundred dollars but less then three hundred.  I had it for many years.  By 1973 they could easily have been bought new ones for much less or used ones for even less than that.  The military could easily have afforded one.

    by debcoop on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:57:10 AM PST

    •  recommend kj's diary

      It's a good supplement to this one.  And it seems to be proof that there was such a typewriter.  The papers should have waited and gotten their facts straight before they jumped the gun.  they sure hop to it for Republicans while it took a couple of weeks for them to get data about the Swift Boat Liars

      by debcoop on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 08:00:33 AM PST

    •  meant to post this in hunter's thread,sorry

      but I still think we sould recommend this diary

      by debcoop on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 08:29:41 AM PST

•  somebody get all these diaries to CBS and Kerry

  I need some sleep

  by zane on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 02:04:44 AM PST

•  CBS should lay this to rest

  They're the ones who say they verified the documents as authentic. They should have known no one would take their word for that, not with the stakes this high. To verify it, reproduce it with the same make and model of typewriter. The Washington Post story clearly attempts to take a huge crap on the credibility of CBS.

  by MeanBoneII on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 03:06:29 AM PST

  •  the bad sign

    CBS won't even way what experts they used to authenticate these.  There have now been at least 4 experts who have gone on the record to say that they  are over 90% sure the documents were not produced in the early 1970's.  There hasn't been a single expert who has said (even anonymously) that these look legit.  Until CBS comes out and says who checked these for authenticity they are going to look pretty bad in this.

    by Damon on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 05:02:14 AM PST

    •  WTF

      
      These so-called experts are WRONG!

      You could find this out yourself, if you cared to actually read the evidence presented here and THINK about it.

      by Felix Deutsch on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 06:16:14 AM PST

      •  "so called experts"

        man- EVERY expert so far has disagreed with the diaries here.  The guy who developed the font type database says that the executive didn't have a font that matches this.  Not one expert has said they thought the documents were real that I have seen, and you really have to think every typefont expert in the US has heard about this issue.  If there were any expert who thought all his colleagues had missed the boat on this one I think they would have said something by now.  At the beginning of this it was amatuers on the left arguing with amatuers on the right and these diaries were important.  Now it is the experts who are all saying they think the documents are fake and I just don't think the amatuers writing the diaries understand the full scope of the problem.

        by Damon on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 06:29:29 AM PST

        •  by now?

          It's been one day.  The experts being  quoted are opining without even having seen the documents, and have already changed stories several times and said things that have since been proven flat-out false.

          I see no reason to think that preliminary guesswork, proven to be faulty in places, by people who have not yet had access to the documents in question should be accepted as definitive proof of anything at all.  And I think it's beyond shameful that media outlets like the WaPo are running with the forgery angle on such unbelievably shaky and preliminary "evidence."

          by hyperbolic pants explosion on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 06:33:36 AM PST

          •  to me...

            to me this is pretty much the superbowl for people in this field.  I am guessing that once the claims started to get some traction the media called pretty much any typefont expert they could find to get a comment.  I would seriously doubt anyone who does this for a living is still unaware of the controversy.

            by Damon on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:00:22 AM PST

            •  WTF?

              What does that have to do with anything I said?

              by hyperbolic pants explosion on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:07:37 AM PST

        •  No

          
          Ok, you refuse to use your own intellect. Too bad.

          Listen, all these experts claim that those proportional fonts weren't widely in use at the time, which had been disproven.

          I understand facts.

          Fact: the typewriters were widely used at the time
          Fact: the font does not match the one in MS Word
          Fact: there is no kerning, contrary to the "experts"
          Fact: the letters are not perfectly vertically aligned

          All this contrary to what those "experts" have claimed.

          And don't you see the serious flaw in logic of this stupid woman?

          That is like claiming because someone could forge the Mona Lisa, the real Mona Lisa is a forgery.

          And again, it isn't even true that the fonts match.

          by Felix Deutsch on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 06:39:52 AM PST

          •  you skip the hard parts

            The ONE candidate for this machine is the IBM executive because it could do proportional spacing with superscipt type at the same time.  And regarless of the fact that it is expensive and tough to use even for an expert, the problem with that machine is there were a VERY limited number of fonts available for it.  And the guy who wrote the font type database that all the other experts in the field use says the executive had nothing that matches these memos.  It would take an expert to say that a font like this one was available for the executive, and no one has disputed the expert who says it wasn't possible.  You have some facts, but you can just ignore the ones that don't fit.  Just ONE expert refuting the claims would go a long way towards backing up these diaries.

            by Damon on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 06:58:54 AM PST

            •  this is really funny

              
              Man, you really are beginning to sound stupid.

              Besides the Executive, also the Selectric II (with the exchangeble "golfballs" typefaces) AND the Selectric Composer were available of which ONLY the Selectric Composer was the expensive one (still not extraordinarily so).

              Both others were in the standard price range.

              I can also inform you that I am an expert on what I see.

              If some "expert" claims kerning as proof for word processor and there is no kerning, then the expert is wrong. Same goes for availability and price of typewriters.
              

              by Felix Deutsch on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:21:44 AM PST

              •  errrr...

                the selectric composer wasn't a personal use machine.  It was for high volume printing.  Really it is a red herring.

                The selectric II could not do proportional spacing at the same time as superscripting.  I don't know where you got this, even the diary in the recommended section mentions this point.

                by Damon on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:36:36 AM PST

                •  so

                  so you now concede that it wasn't the Executive that was expensive but the Selectric Composer?

                  Funny, because you just claimed otherwise.

                  And note the following:
                  The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line whereas the Selectric I did not. This feature permitted the insertion of subscripts and superscripts.

                  by Felix Deutsch on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:49:04 AM PST

                  •  no....

                    the executive was expensive for a typewriter.   The Composer was expensive for a printshop.  The composer is so far out of the range of a personal use machine that it really doesn't belong in the discussion.  The executive would be unlikely to be used in this role but it was possible, it fails because no fonts were available that fit this memo.

                    And the selectric II could not do proportional spacing at the same time as superscript fonts.  As I said, even the recommended diary on this subject backs this up.  For fixed width I am sure the selectric II could have done superscripts with no problem.  It wasn't possible to have both proportional spacing and superscripts though.  For that, you needed to get the executive.

                    by Damon on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:55:07 AM PST

                    •  as I said

                      
                      Giving an opinion as an "expert" means nothing; even less so if you can't put forward a persuasive argument and have to rely on non-sequiturs, pure illogic and disproven claims.

                      And I have absolutetly NO CONFIDENCE in people who give percentages for probabilities (like 95% sure) where they are not based on actual numbers.
                      This is a common tactic to give the appearance of a scientific approach, when in fact it's all opinions.

                      by Felix Deutsch on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 08:52:14 AM PST

                    •  proof for Selectric II

                      go here:
                      

                      
                      Kevin, I'm very disappointed in you. You're crediting the opinions of freepers and so-called experts who are making judgements based on PDF's of FAXED COPIES of these documents! Good grief, man, get a grip on reality. I personally owned an IBM Selectric II in 1971 that did proportional spacing and had all the little "th," "st," "rd" and fraction options right on the little steel ball. My husband who was in the Marines from 1966 to 1976 swears that IBM Selectric's I & II were standard issue in most military offices by 1971. But, you know, keep blowing smoke if it makes you feel self-important.
                      

                      by Felix Deutsch on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 12:25:13 PM PST

                      •  I was a clerk typist at the Army Corps of Engin.

                        in 1975 and we all had Selectrics, I guess they were II.  I know they didn't have that color spacing wheel on the side that the Composer had.  And the IBM Executive was not a "Selectric."

                        But even the Selectric II had a half-space.  We used prestige elite "ball."  I think they had special characters like "th" but half the time you'd forget to use it.  

                        You forget that the gov't and military do order in bulk and a gov't contract of any kind was sought after, so I don't think any IBM typewriters would be priced out of the market.  And while I read that the "Composer" was such a complicated machine and only for books and typesetters, etc., I just looked at the picture of it and it looked just like the ones I used except the dial on the side.  So how hard, really, could it be?
                        

                        by marjo on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 07:41:33 PM PST

        •  The Experts

          Based on PDF files printed out in Arizona and across the country the 'experts' have determined that the documents could have been produced on a word processer. I could make a copy of Mount Rushmore with mashed potatoes but that's not the fucking question. The question is could the document have been produced in 1972 with equipment in common usage by the Air National Guard. Multiple sources here have established:

          1. As this diary points out, an IBM Selectric Composer had proportional spacing and all the features necessary to produce the document.

          2. The Air Force was testing IBM Selectric Composers in 1969.

          3. The New York Times 'expert' questioned the size and cost of this model. Is this expert also an expert on procurement? See photos of the typewriters in question here, here, and a magnetic tape model here.

          4. The military had good typewriters because they love forms and the smell of napalm in the morning.

          by joejoejoe on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 06:53:33 AM PST

•  The Air Force tests IBM Selectric Composer in '69

  joejoejoe posted it in the recommended thread.

  by MeanBoneII on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 03:18:54 AM PST

•  GOP winning this argument...

  It doesn't matter what the facts are; we are talking about typeface and fonts and superscript...NOT BUSH.  They are controlling the topic of conversation.

  When the SBVT ads came out, we were talking about why Kerry's medals were real - playing DEFENSE.

  Now we are talking about why these memos are real - again playing DEFENSE, and getting distracted from the central arguments (which Bush hasn't denied.

  As long as Rove gets to frame the debate as one over 'forgeries', then the story itself is secondary.  

  Is there NO WAY for the left to figure out how to get the media zeitgeist redirected toward issues and events that favor us?  Oy.

  by PBJ Diddy on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 04:49:18 AM PST

  •  I agree

    That's why it has to be turned back around so quickly. Prove indisputably that the documents ABSOLUTELY could have been produced in the early '70s. It's the integrity of CBS that's on the line. The Washington Post has clearly questioned it.

    by MeanBoneII on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 05:12:59 AM PST

•  I like your research - but

  Thank you for finding this font... a great find.

  But, read the description of the process for creating documents using the Composer. Does that sound like something that would have been used in a TANG office?

  Anecdotally, most folks typing these sorts of docs seem to have used Selectrics, which did not have Times New Roman - while they did have Bookface Academic, the font does not match up to the memos. I can't find any evidence that Aldine Roman was available for the Selectric - although I suppose the balls used on the Composer may have been supported on the Selectric. In addition the Selectric did not support proportional spacing, so if that is what is in evidence in the memos.

  Any evidence for Aldine Roman on the Executive - which did support the proportional spacing?

  There's still a hole in this story, I'm afraid. I'm not saying there's no solution - we just aren't there yet.

  by Yermum on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 08:03:08 AM PST

  •  Process

    That process is only for right-justifying the second copy. If you don't care about that, you don't have to do it.

    by Happy Monkey on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 11:28:20 AM PST

  •  You'd have a point

    if the description were correct.  You don't have to type everything twice with the Composer.  You type it once then hit a button which automatically types it out for you.  It had a 8000 character mechanical memory.  Quite a gadget actually.  See pages 12-16 in the manual (17-21 in the pdf).  It really was as easy to use as any other typewriter.  If someone had it, why not use it.  And the "Aldine Roman" Font is an exact match as far as I can tell, although that is not conclusive without the actual ball.

    Personally, I think it just as likely that these were re-typed later, but I believe they are real.  Why would someone be so good at getting the content right and then be so stupid as to use Word to type it.  Come on.  The content has to be real.

    by kj on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 12:11:14 PM PST

    •  Right on!

      Thanks for reading the manual. Now if only someone had a manual for the IBM Executive Model D and/or could prove that it was possible to get this font on it. There would then be a second typewriter that could have made the memo - and more likely since it was cheaper.

      I agree on the memo even though the content's not quite right...

      Besides the font that's IN THE MANUAL looks like a match.

      This is good stuff. Thanks.

      by Yermum on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 01:20:06 PM PST

•  Bembo/Aldine Roman

  Bembo does not match the font in the memo.

  Look at the capital "W" in the May 4th memo. Also the swooping (almost italic) footer on the numeral 2 in "May,1972". I have yet to track down the font in the memo.

  Admittedly it is a shit PDF scan of a fax (and off-axis) at 200 pixels per inch so font matching is a nightmare (almost impossible) to match it because you can't clearly make out the consistently recuring features of serif shape and weight, etc. with any precision at all.

  Mitch Gore

  January 20, 2009... the end of an error.

  by Lestatdelc on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 11:59:27 AM PST