I should say that I was actually slightly troubled by the "1's" in the forged documents. To be fair to Rather, it became clear to me when looking at Corante's blown-up images that the 1's actually don't look quite like Times New Roman 1's. They seem to have a flat, 90-degree-angle serif at the top, not the angled blade that Times New Roman 1's have.

I didn't realize that faxing or copying documents can turn angled-blades into flat-tops pretty easily.

Dead Parrots has a .gif of a faxed, typeset page. The page isn't actually in Times New Roman font, but the 1's are Roman-looking, with their angled, bladelike tops.

You can see that some of the 1's remain Roman-looking ones-- angled blade-tops intact -- but others are transformed into flat-topped crude-looking things just like in the Rather forgeries.

In fact, something that had been bothering me -- the indented, concave bottoms on the forgery 1's -- also shows up on faxed one's.

Thus, contra Dan Rather's typewriter repairman/"software expert," it's not true that such 1's are only available on old-style typewriters. Not only are they readily available on all MS Word systems through the Courier font, but they are "available" in any document which has been faxed. The process of faxing makes blade-tops into flat-tops.

The old-style 1's that Rather puts so much stock in are simply an artifact of the faxing process.

Beyond the Jump: In the "continue reading this post" section is my original argument that such flat-topped 1's could be easily created using the Courier font on MS Word. That's still true-- you can do that.

But Dead Parrot's tip tells me that one needn't go to all that fuss in the first place. One just needs to run the document through the fax-- blades to flat-tops upon transmission.

If you're trying this at home, Eric Pobris says you should use a typical fax of 200 dpi quality or thereabouts. He says even cheap scanners will produce very clear facsimilies, which doesn't seem to be the effect the forger was after.

Distributed intelligence strikes again. From off the cuff speculation to correction (with visual proof) in just twenty seconds.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 753 words, total size 5 kb.

(Mini-exclusive-- contains some new information.)

Rather's newest "expert" claims that the "1's" shown in the forged documents are actually lower-case L's ("l's" -- I know, they look very similar). He says this is more consistent with a typewriter than a computer-generated document.

Corante shows that in fact the two characters are extraodinarily similar, making it hard to tell one from the other. Except for one thing-- numbers on a computer-generated document are mono-spaced for readablility (i.e., so that the digits line up when doing column math), while lower-case "l's" would, like any other letter, be variably proportionately spaced.

Furthermore, the characters are nearly identical in Times New Roman anyway. In fact, I don't see any difference, although experts say the 1's are slightly taller than lower-case L's.

He presents .gifs to show the characters in question seem to be mono-spaced, indicating they are most likely not, in fact, lower-case L's, but rather normal computer-generated 1's.

But there's another objection to this newest of Dan Rather's defenses.

Dan Rather has been claiming these documents may be authentic because of the rather fanciful possibility that Jerry Killian had access to, for unknown reasons, a very high-end quasi-typesetting machine called the IBM Selectric Composer which could produce proportionally spaced characters (but, alas, not the same variably-proportionally spaced characters actually shown in the forged documents).

So Rather's entire defense is predicated on the Jerry Killian typing these documents on machine costing $3600-$4400 in 1972 dollars.

His expert asserts that it's more common for typical typewriters to use an l in place of a true 1 than for a computer word-processing program to do the same.

Well, Mr. Katz-- perhaps that was more common in normal typewriters.

It was not, however, true of the IBM Selectric Composer-- the very machine Rather's defenders insist the documents are actually typed in.

Shape of Days consulted an expert on the IBM Selectric Composer, and had him type out the text of the forgeries. This is what the IBM Selectric Composer typed, using the Press Roman ball:

Notice that the 1's for this type are very similar (if not identical to) the New Times Roman 1's on Word 97. Also note that, in fact, the Selectric Composer apparently has both 1's and l's -- the characters are clearly spaced differently. 1's are mono-spaced, as they are on Word 97. l's are proportionately spaced, again as they are on Word 97 -- check out how spaced out the "111" is, compared to the double-l's in "Ellington."

So which is it, Mr. Rather? If Killian had the sort of typical typewriter we'd expect to see on a TANG base, we probably would see l's rather than 1's.

But you're not claiming he had such a typical typewriter. You're claiming he had a high-end quasi-typesetting machine capable of producing variably-spaced Roman text-- and in the example we have, this high-end machine in fact has, as one would expect, distinct 1's and l's.

You can't claim that the documents were typed on a typical typewriter which would produce lower-case L's for 1's and also that they were typed on a high-end quasi-typesetting machine with distinct L's and 1's.

Or perhaps this really is Rather's latest claim-- that Killian typed out the bulk of the text using a high-end quasi-typesetting machine, but then, just to type the 1's (and nothing else!), switched over to one of the more primitive typewriters available at the base.

By the Way Update: If you're troubled by the superscripted "th" in the Selectric Composer sample-- don't be. In order to get that small-font superscript, the expert had to manually switch from an 11-point font ball to an 8-point font ball -- unscrewing one, screwing in the other -- and then switch back again to the 11 point font ball in order to finish the document.

Seems unlikely. Although they say there were custom-order balls that had small-font superscript available on them. The expert Shape of Days questioned didn't have one, though, making one wonder how common such balls were.

Posted by: Ace at 08:25 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 690 words, total size 5 kb.

Precisely how many experts did CBS News have to cajole before they finally discovered one willing to risk his reputation -- whatever reputation he might have -- to sort of "authenticate" the signature on one of the four forged documents?

When lawyers go shopping for an expert to say what they need to be said in court, they will usually start out at the top of the list, the best qualified, highest regarded stand-outs in their field.

And if those experts say that they can't or won't testify as the lawyer requires, both parties bid an amicable farewell and go their separate ways.

And then lawyer goes to the second tier of expert; and then the third. And so on, until he finally finds someone -- anyone -- whom a judge might charitably deem legally an "expert" competent to render expert testimony in a field.

I wondered how many experts CBS had burned through before they finally found someone willing to say, "Um, okay, I guess, looks all right to me."

I should have wondered more about the man's address: San Fransisco. CBS News is headquarted in New York, and the locus of the story is in Texas; neither of those places is anywhere near San Fransisco. How did it come to be, exactly, that CBS News had to reach out all the way to second biggest city on the opposite coast to land an expert willing to "authenticate" the forgeries?

How many New York and Washington experts turned CBS down before they finally turned to LA, and then, after LA proved fruitless, headed up the Pacific Coast Highway?

Somewhat embarassingly for both Matley and CBS, he had previously written that the authenticity of a signature cannot be positively established off a copy, because simple computer tricks can put one genuine signature on to a document never signed by the subject, and that therefore only the disproving of a signature on a copy was possible.

But, there you go. There was Dan Rather's expert witness, a man who, to the extent he "authenticated" anything at all, could only authenticate a signature rather than the entirety of a document.

It turns out that it's actually a little worse than that. Which will be the epitaph of this story: Everything was worse than it seemed, even when you thought it was all pretty shoddy to begin with.

The New York Post reports today:

Matley, it turns out, got his start as a graphologist analyzing "spirituality in handwriting," The Post's Deborah Orin reports today. Some in the field believe he lacks sufficient credentials.

Spirituality in handwriting? Well, certainly, it's possible that a man in the field of handwriting generally might become well-trained in more scientific, and less spiritual, facets of graphology; but it's not exactly the most promising start.

And, no matter how competent Matley may be, you certainly wouldn't take as your first choice of expert, all other things being equal, the guy who started off in "spirituality in handwriting." It's not the kind of bullet-point on a resume you'd highlight.

But even still: Everything is worse than it seems, even if you thought it was all pretty shoddy to begin with.

Because, as the Washington Post article already linked headlines, Matley now says he didn't actually "authenticate" anything, no matter what Dan Rather might say:

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Well, that and he's not qualified to authenticate typography or military-records format or the like.

Matley had previously been "muzzled" by CBS, in his own words, previously telling reporters that he "can't talk" to the press. He's talking a little bit now, and I can't imagine that's good news for Dan Rather.

Matley seems to have realized his professional reputation, such as it may be, is now in serious jeopardy due to his decision to trust Dan Rather, and he has apparently decided he's not going down with Rather's ship.

Will the hundreds of executives and reporters and copyeditors at CBS make a similar calculation?

Does Steve Krofft want to see his professional reputation tarnished because Dan Rather is still smarting over George H. W. Bush's put-down of him?

We'll see. I don't have much faith in the media to act in the public interest, but I do trust in them to act in their own.

Correction: I originally linked another blog for the proposition that Matley only had a few self-published books to his name. I am now told that's not true. I retract the claim and apologize for making it.

Posted by: Ace at 12:11 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 833 words, total size 5 kb.

And guess what?

He did.

Kerry was awarded the Silver Star for shooting a fleeing VC teenager in the back.

This was not a war-crime. A fleeing soldier is not a surrendering soldier; a soldier who flees is just executing a sound military strategy, and he'll be back to kill you at some other point.

So John Kerry had every right, if not the duty, to shoot the kid in the back.

I'm not suggesting he did anything wrong.

I am, however, suggesting he didn't do anything particularly noteworthy or heroic; a lot of soldiers have, in the line of duty, had to shoot fleeing or unaware enemy soldiers, and they should be commended for doing a duty that they might find distasteful on a human level.

But we don't usually award them the Silver Stars for plugging a kid in the back while not being in any danger themselves. There's a big difference between "acting above and beyond the call of duty" and "just doing what the hell you were supposed to do," after all.

The SwiftVets said that Kerry was in no danger at the time of the shooting; there were no other VC in sight. The liberal media Spirit Squad said, "But he was awarded a Silver Star! Surely there must have been danger!"

The SwiftVets said, "No, not particularly. He wrote the After Action Report, and turned a pedestrian shooting of a fleeing teenager into fraudulent heroic glory."

The liberal media said, "But you have no proof he wrote the After Action Report."

Well, guess what, now we do have the proof. And, who knows, before long perhaps we'll have the other After Action Reports as well.

I expect we'll be hearing that apology from Chris Matthews any day now.

Any. Day. Now.

From Drudge.

Facts About Kerry's Actual Vietnam Record: Visiting Hugh Hewitt's great blog I was tipped to a new blog, and a good post summarizing Kerry's real record.

The writer asks: Did Kerry serve honorably?

I think he did serve honorably. Honorably, but not eagerly, and furthermore with a somewhat indecent haste to stop serving honorably the moment he could cadge his third fakey Purple Heart; and competently and occasionally courageously, but certainly not heroically. He is indeed a "war hero" in the sense that we term almost all veterans of foreign wars "war heroes" just for doing the man's job that is defending our country; but not in the stricter sense of "war hero," the sense he and his supporters actual want us to take "war hero" to mean.

Bob Kerrey was a war hero. If you read about what he did, you're actually taken aback by the grit and guts of his deeds.

John Kerry was a guy who attempted to get a deferrment to go to grad school in Paris (natch) and then, faced with the option of being drafted into the very-dangerous infantry, "volunteered" for what he believed would be non-combat service. And then, after serving only four months of a one year tour, he contrived three bogus Purple Hearts, asskissed his way back home, and began calling his fellow veterans murderers, butchers, and rapists.

He served honorably but not heroically in Vietnam. After returning to the United States, he served monstrously.

Checking My Work Update: A correspondent asks, "Where does it say in the report that it was written by John Kerry?"

Actually, to my eyes, it doesn't. There may be some military sort of code indicating it was composed by the OINC (which would be Kerry), but I know nothing of that.

I guess, with all of the SHOW YOUR WORK demands of the blogosphere I should have been more cautious about that.

Nevertheless, Itznewstome saw the TV report which disclosed the AAF, and he says the reporter's commentary attributed the AAF to John Kerry.

That's not actual first-hand evidence; that's just relying on a reporter's say-so (something we should be pretty cautious about doing). But it does seem that the reporter on the story, at least, determined it was written by John Kerry, though I can't say how or why he determined that.

I'll keep my eye on this. If it turns out the attribution to Kerry is shaky at all, I'll retract and correct and apologize. Unlike Dan Rather, I won't demand "definitive" evidence that I spoke too quickly.

Posted by: Ace at 10:46 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 742 words, total size 5 kb.

The Washington Post -- yes, the Post, not the Times -- lowers the boom, Big Time, as the man says.

It's not quite as devastating as one could hope, but I'd say it's about 80% there. It leaves precious little doubt that these documents are forgeries:

In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.

Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.

Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.

Very satisfying is the fact that one expert relied upon by the Post is the pajama'd pontificator linked here (as well as by half the blogosphere).

From pajama'd punk to Post poobah in 24 hours. Not too shabby.

I don't want to say that Dan Rather is getting rattled and paranoid, but I heard he just called up Alexander Haig to discuss "the military option" for preventing any further challenge to his reputation.

Start fueling up helicopter CBS One.

Dan Rather Retirement Watch Update:

At the tone, the Dan Rather Retirement Watch displays a time of

(bong)

11:53PM-- two minutes closer to midnight (retirement)

Same as It Ever Was Update: The American Digest looks back in anger at 33 years of highly politicized and deceptive CBS "reportage."

Regarding CBS's smear of General Westmoreland:

TV Guide did research of its own and, with the help of inside-CBS sources who leaked unedited transcripts, titled its report "Anatomy of a Smear: How CBS News Broke the Rules and ‘Got’ General Westmoreland." TV Guide claimed that CBS began the project already convinced a conspiracy had taken place and "turned a deaf ear toward evidence that suggested otherwise."

Gee, that sounds absolutely nothing like what's happened recently. Forget I even mentioned it.

Via Instapundit.

Mr. X and Kausfiles Blow a Prediction on the Night It's Made Update: Mr. X, who I've seen around these parts, tips Kaus that USAToday will be the first tower to fall to the blogbarian hordes, and Kaus agrees.

Sorry, boys. True, USAToday has reported skeptically about the forgeries, but it was the Washington Post that actually took the blue pill and went down the rabbit hole first.

On the other hand, Mr. X may have a chance to redeem himself with this part of his prediction, if we substitute "a major media source calling the documents a sham" for his specific prediction of USAT doing so:

If that happens, then the pressure on rather and cbs intensifies significantly...leading to what? a rather apology ot the president in the last few weeks of a presidential campaign?

Certainly the pressure on Rather and CBS will intensify-- somewhat. But I don't know how much.

The media does not want to report on this story, and they certainly do not want to pursue it back to its source (DNC opposition researchers peddling crude forgeries to an all-to-willing aging leftie) and they certainly don't want to examine the implications of the story (such as the media's, let us say, forward-leaning posture as regards stories that damage Republicans and its protective and well-nigh impenetrable caution as regards stories that damage Democrats).

The Washington Post, for example, may decide that it's done quite enough work on behalf of Republicans at this point, and let the entire matter lie. Their conscience is clear; they said the documents were forgeries, and they have nothing more to report. They may just let Dan Rather continue his arrogant insistence that le news, c'est moi, and leave the issue fundamentally unresolved.

I don't think we're going to see the New York Times pick up the ball and run, now will we?

But there are of course other media players. The Wall Street Journal is the only media organization with both the resources and, when it chooses, the balls to go after a story like this.

Will they? I don't know.

Posted by: Ace at 09:07 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.

Thanks for everyone who's been coming to this site. It's a lot of fun to write silly shit for you.

You may have noticed I haven't been responding to email or posting in the comments very frequently. I'm sorry, but I've been sort of busy generally, and then of course there's been this ridiculous forgery scandal I've been trying to keep up with. I just had a huge amount of traffic for me, and it's been kind of tough to keep up with everything.

Anyway, I just want everyone I know I appreciate your coming, even if I'm lately sort of a dick about keeping up correspondence.

Posted by: Ace at 06:55 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush extends his lead to eight in the Democrats' own Florida of the Midwest, Wisconsin. That's +5 for Bush since the Repblican convention.

Posted by: Ace at 06:37 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

These realtors really ought to check the pictures they're putting on-line.

Third photo. Look out the window.

Thanks to Jonah Goldberg at NRO. He says the "dogs" will play. Looks to me like a doberman and a sheep.

A Fun Game For Ages 8 to 88! The Unpopulist has made a little game out of the picture.

Posted by: Ace at 02:29 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

This time, they interview veterans to ask them if they're angry about the alleged Bush "sugarcoat" memos, without troubling themselves to mention to their subjects that, oh, by the way, the "memos" are almost certainly fraudulent.

Perhaps the AP should ask Vietnam veterans what they think about John Kerry fraudulently obtaining Purple Hearts to contrive an early exit from Vietnam. I realize that it's the press' claim that that's not true (no matter how many witnesses say otherwise), but, so long as we're asking people about false charges, might as well see what people think about false charges against John Kerry, no?

Fair is fair.

Posted by: Ace at 02:02 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

A partisan political operative of the sort Dan Rather would approve claimed that Bush was photographed wearing a ribbon to which he was not entitled.

Already knocked down, and by a truly "unimpeachable source" -- the U.S. Air Force and its records keepers.

That's an "unimpeachable source," Mr. Rather. Not the biased, partisan source you're keeping anonymous only because you want to shield him from the scrutiny that will prove your story a deliberate lie on your part.

Posted by: Ace at 01:56 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.