Killian documents authenticity issues: Difference between revisions
m →Independent experts: fix line breaks |
XavierItzm (talk | contribs) m →Typography: clarify source |
||
(409 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Clues to forgery in a 2004 political controversy}} |
|||
[[Image:guardgif.gif|350px|thumb|right|One of the Killian documents.]]During the [[Killian documents]] controversy in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was challenged by a variety of individuals and groups. Proof of authenticity is likely impossible without original documents, and since CBS used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals. However, the validity of these photocopied documents was challenged on a number of grounds, ranging from alleged anachronisms in their typography to issues pertaining to their content. |
|||
{{Further|Killian documents controversy|George W. Bush military service controversy}} |
|||
During the [[Killian documents controversy]] in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was disputed by a variety of individuals and groups. Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents, and since [[CBS]] used only [[fax]]ed and [[photocopied]] duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the [[provenance]] of the originals. However, proving documents inauthentic does not depend on the availability of originals, and the validity of these photocopied documents has been challenged on a number of grounds,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/bush-national-guard-story-lives|title=The Bush National Guard Story Lives!|work=motherjones.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/bush.html|title=Are the Bush Documents Fakes?|work=xavier.edu}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-24/ex-60-minutes-producer-is-no-hollywood-hero|title=Ex-'60 Minutes' Producer Is No Hollywood Hero|first=Megan|last=McArdle|newspaper=Bloomberg.com|date=24 July 2014|via=www.bloomberg.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://washingtonmonthly.com/2004/09/15/killian-finale/|title=Killian Finale?|date=15 September 2004|work=washingtonmonthly.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/truth-or-consequences/|title=Truth or Consequences|date=21 January 2013|work=texasmonthly.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/tangled_web/2004/09/rather_suspicious.html|title=Rather Suspicious|first=Josh|last=Levin|date=10 September 2004|via=Slate}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6055248|title=CBS News admits Bush documents can't be verified|date=21 September 2004|work=[[NBC News]]}}</ref><ref name=Wired2017>{{cite magazine|url= https://www.wired.com/story/meet-the-font-detectives-who-ferret-out-fakery/|title=Meet the Font Detectives Who Ferret Out Fakery|first=Glenn|last=Fleishman|date=13 September 2017|magazine=Wired.com}}</ref> ranging from [[anachronism]]s in their typography to issues pertaining to their content. |
|||
==Typography== |
== Typography == |
||
[[File:Killian memos MSWord animated.gif|frame|right|[[Charles Foster Johnson|Charles Johnson]]'s animated GIF image comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a 2004-era [[Microsoft Word]] document made with default settings]] |
|||
In the initial hours and days after the CBS broadcast, most of the criticism of the documents' authenticity centered on the fact that they did not look like typical [[typewriter|typewritten]] documents and appeared very similar to documents produced with modern [[Word processor|word-processing software]]. These criticisms, first raised by bloggers,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jenny Attiyeh |title=Who's got the power? |url=https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2005/02/whos-got-the-power/ |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=[[The Harvard Gazette]] |date=3 February 2005 |quote=Powerline, a conservative blog, was one of the first to raise questions about the authenticity of memos on President Bush’s National Guard service, broadcast by CBS on “60 Minutes.”}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=''Rathergate'' |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/rathergate.html |website=[[Frontline (American TV program)]] |publisher=[[Public Broadcasting Service]] |access-date=16 April 2021 |date=2007 |quote=Scott Johnson [...] Power Line [...] Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? [...] I called that post "The 61st Minute,"}}</ref> were taken up by outlets of the mainstream press, including ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[The New York Times]]'', the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', and others, who sought opinions from multiple experts. The arguments and findings are summarized below. |
|||
=== Proportional fonts === |
|||
In the initial hours and days after the CBS broadcast, most of the criticism of the documents' authenticity centered around the fact that they did not look like typical typewritten documents and appeared very similar to documents produced with modern word-processing software. These criticisms, first raised by bloggers, were taken up by outlets of the mainstream press, including ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'', the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', and others, who sought opinions from multiple experts. The arguments and findings are summarized below. |
|||
One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of [[proportional fonts]] (as opposed to a [[monospaced typeface]], where all glyphs have a single, standard width). Most typewriters in 1972 used fixed-width [[Typeface|fonts]], and, according to ''The Washington Post'',<ref name=WaPo0914 /> all of the authenticated documents from the [[TexANG]] were typed using fixed-width fonts commonly associated with typewriters. |
|||
Several experts interviewed by the media suggested that the proportional fonts in the documents indicated likely forgery. John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at [[Bitstream Inc.]], the parent of [[Myfonts.com|MyFonts.com]], stated that [[word processor]]s that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time ({{Inflation|US|20000|1972|fmt=eq|r=-3}}).{{citation needed|date=September 2022}} William Flynn, a [[Forensic science|forensic]] document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques.<ref>{{cite news | title=Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9_2.html | access-date=2005-12-21 | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=September 10, 2004}}</ref> ''[[The Washington Post]]'' also indicated the presence of proportional fonts as suspicious because "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents".<ref name=WaPo0914>{{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | access-date=2007-02-20 | newspaper=The Washington Post | first1=Michael | last1=Dobbs | first2=Howard | last2=Kurtz | date=September 14, 2004}}</ref> |
|||
===Proportional fonts=== |
|||
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in [[New York City]] with typewriter repair experience from 1973 to 1985, said experts making the claim that typewriters were incapable of producing the memos "are full of crap. They just don't know." He said there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he said were not unusual — for creating the superscript <sup>th</sup>.<ref>{{cite news | title=The X Files Of Lt. Bush | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html | archive-url=https://archive.today/20130104234427/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=January 4, 2013 | access-date=2005-12-21 | publisher=TIME | date=September 13, 2004}}</ref> |
|||
One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of proportional fonts. The majority of typewriters available in [[1972]] used fixed width [[Typeface|fonts]], and most of the authenticated documents from the TexANG were typed using fixed width fonts commonly associated with typewriters; one document released by the Pentagon on [[September 24]], [[2004]] used a proportionally-spaced font somewhat similar to the font used in the Killian memos {{ref|www.bluelemur.com.868}}. Some have suggested that because they are photocopies, the actual font of the Killian Documents may be almost impossible to identify. Various proportional fonts were commonly available on military typewriters of that era. This 1969 letter{{ref|truthandduty.com.869}} from Gen. Ross Ayers of TexANG also exhibits proportional spacing, as does this letter{{ref|truthandduty.com.870}} of resignation in protest from a TexANG secretary, as does John Kerry's 1967 Navy fitness report{{ref|news.findlaw.com.871}}, as does this 1963 White House memorandum{{ref|www.lbjlib.utexas.edu.872}}. None of these proportional font examples is the same font as that used on the Killian documents. |
|||
Thomas W. Phinney II, program manager for fonts at [[Adobe Systems]], responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the [[IBM Executive series typewriter|IBM Executive]] or [[IBM Selectric Composer]], which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing.<ref name=WaPo0914 /> Phinney says that each time a typeface was redeveloped for mechanical technologies with different width factors, the width and designs are altered, which is why even if [[Press Roman]] had been intended to look like [[Times Roman]], the result is significantly different.<ref name=TypekitBlog>{{cite web|last1=Phinney|first1=Thomas|title=Bush Guard memos used Times Roman, not Times New Roman|url=http://blog.typekit.com/2006/08/03/bush_guard_memo/|website=The Typekit Blog|access-date=20 April 2015|date=3 August 2006}}</ref> Phinney suggests that the real typist prevented Word from auto-formatting "th" in superscript by typing and deleting a space in some cases but in other cases did not use the space or left it in the document.<ref name=Wired2017/> |
|||
Several experts interviewed by the media suggested that the proportional fonts in the documents indicated likely forgery. John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com, stated that word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.{{ref|www.cnsnews.com.873}} Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype, stated "It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with."{{ref|www.cnsnews.com.874}} William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques.{{ref|www.washingtonpost.com.875}} The Washington Post also indicated the presence of proportional fonts as suspicious "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents".{{ref|www.washingtonpost.com.876}} However, several documents later obtained from the TexANG, including parts of Bush's service record, display proportional fonts. None of these documents used the same proportional font as the CBS documents. |
|||
Phinney's analysis was based on the fact that the typography of the Killian documents could be closely matched with a modern personal computer and printer using [[Microsoft Word]] with the default font ([[Times New Roman]]) and other settings. Therefore, the equipment with which the Killian documents were actually produced must have been capable of matching the typographical characteristics produced by this modern technology. |
|||
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in [[New York City]] with typewriter repair experience from [[1973]] to [[1985]], said experts making the claim that typewriters were incapable of producing the memos "are full of crap. They just don't know." He said there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he said were not unusual — for creating the superscript <sup>th</sup>.{{ref|www.time.com.877}} Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts at [[Adobe Systems]], responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the IBM Executive or Selectric Composer, which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing. {{ref|www.washingtonpost.com.878}} Phinney says that each time a typeface was redeveloped for mechanical technologies with different width factors, the width and designs are altered, which is why even if Press Roman had been intended to look like Times Roman, the result is significantly different. |
|||
As Phinney explained, the letterspacing of the Times New Roman font used by Microsoft Word with a modern personal computer and printer employs a system of 18 units relative to the letter height ([[Em (typography)|em]]), with common characters being 5 to 17 units wide. (The technology allows even finer variability of character widths, but the 18 unit system was chosen for compatibility with the [[Linotype machine|Linotype]] phototypesetting and earlier hot-metal versions of the font.) In contrast, the variability of character widths available on early 1970s typewriters using proportional letterspacing was more limited, due to the mechanical technology employed. The most sophisticated of these machines, the IBM Selectric Composer, used a system of 9 units relative to the letter height, in which all characters were 3 to 9 units wide. Less complex machines used fewer widths. |
|||
Typewriters with proportional fonts were first introduced in [[1941]], mass-produced from [[1948]] onwards, and were in widespread use by 1972. The most common device available in 1972 with proportional font support and similar (though not an exact match) {{ref|shapeofdays.typepad.com.879}} to the font some claim was used in the memos (11-point Press Roman vs. 12-point Times New Roman) is the [[IBM Selectric]] Composer. The [[IBM Executive]] was the most common proportional-spacing typewriter of the era, and supported a single serifed proportional font that is very different from the Selectric Composer font that most closely matches the font some believe is used in the memos. The Selectric Composer was a "Selectric" in name only—really a low-end typesetting device rather than a typewriter, and cost $3,600 to $4,400 in [[1973]] dollars ($16,000 to $22,000 in 2004 dollars). (Regular Selectrics were available second-hand for around $150 {{ref|www.dailykos.com.880}}, but could not have produced the documents in question.) |
|||
Differences in individual character widths accumulate over the length of a line, so that comparatively small differences would become readily apparent. Because of the differing character widths employed, the letterspacing exhibited by the Killian documents (matching that produced by a modern computer and printer) could not have been produced with a mechanical typewriter using proportional letterspacing in the early 1970s. At the time the documents were purportedly created, the matching letterspacing could only have been produced using phototypesetting or hot-metal printing. Since it is not a realistic possibility that Killian would have had these documents printed, Phinney concludes that they are almost certainly modern forgeries.<ref name=Wired2017/> |
|||
''Desktop'' magazine in [[Australia]] analysed the documents in its [[November]] 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman. The article did not dispute that superscripts and proportional fonts were available in the 1970s. |
|||
Phinney has long offered $1,000 "to anybody who can produce an office-level device that was available in 1972 that can replicate the relative line endings of those memos" but no-one has ever tried to do that.<ref name=Wired2017/> |
|||
===Sophisticated spacing=== |
|||
Several blogs argued that the Killian memos display [[kerning]], a form of variable character spacing that is available in modern word processing software but not on typewriters. Two of these blogs later retracted the claim of kerning.{{ref|www.indcjournal.com.881}}{{ref|qando.net.882}} Kerning is an option in Microsoft Word but is turned off by default. Joseph Newcomer, an expert cited by critics of the memos, explained that the memos do not display kerning, but instead use a characteristic of [[True type]] fonts he called "pseudo-kerning." |
|||
''[[Desktop (magazine)|Desktop]]'' magazine in [[Australia]] analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman. |
|||
Characters in Microsoft True type fonts are described by "ABC" dimensions where C is the offset from the right edge of the character to the next character. Certain characters, such as the lower case "f", have a negative offset value. That allows the next character to "tuck in" underneath the overhanging loop of the "f". The comparable function on a manual typewriter is the [[escapement]], the amount the carriage or typing ball advances with each letter. Mono-spaced typewriters have a fixed escapement value of 1 character; every letter starts the same distance from the previous letter. The typewriters of the time that were capable of proportional spacing achieved this using a variable escapement that advanced the ball 1/3, 2/3 or 3/3 of a space, depending on which letter had been typed. However, no typewriter had the capability to perform "negative escapement" that would be required to place a lower case "r" or "o" underneath the overhanging loop of an "f", as seen in the Killian memos.{{ref|www.flounder.com.867}} |
|||
=== Inter-character spacing === |
|||
===Word wrapping=== |
|||
Joseph Newcomer, who helped pioneer electronic typesetting and word processing software,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04264/382133.stm |title=Newsmaker: Joseph M. Newcomer / Computer specialist is in the thick of a pitched-font battle over documents |date=September 20, 2004 |publisher=Post-Gazette | first=Pohla | last=Smith}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |
|||
Because a typewriter does not have the ability to know what the user is going to type next, it is up to the typist to decide when to move the carriage to the next line. Sometimes, a typist will use hyphenation to split a word between two lines on a syllable boundary, while computer word processors like [[Microsoft Word]] do not do this by default. The documents are not hyphenated; several official TexANG documents are not hyphenated either.{{ref|truthandduty.com.883}} Critics have argued that it is implausible that a manual typist would have ended each line at the exact same point as a computer program written decades later. |
|||
|last= Reddy |first=D.R. |author2=W. Broadley |author3=L.D. Erman |author4=R. Johnsson |author5=J. Newcomer |author6=G. Robertson |author7=J. Wright |
|||
|date=December 1972 |
|||
|title=A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation |
|||
|journal= Information Processing Letters |
|||
|volume=1 |issue=6 |pages=246–251 |
|||
|doi=10.1016/0020-0190(72)90021-X}}</ref> claims that the memos display a simple alternative to [[kerning]] characteristic of [[TrueType]] fonts but not available on any office equipment in 1972. For example, in words containing "fr", TrueType moves the "r" left to tuck it in under the top part of the "f".<ref name=WaPo0914 /> The ''Weekly Standard'' called Newcomer's explanation the "definitive account" of why the documents were "necessarily forgeries."<ref>{{cite web | title=What Blogs Have Wrought | author=Jonathan V. Last | date=2004-09-27 | url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040920001008/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/640pgolk.asp| url-status=dead| archive-date=September 20, 2004}}</ref> The ''Washington Post'' quoted Newcomer in an article regarding questions about the authenticity of the papers.<ref name=WaPo14 /> |
|||
=== Centered headers === |
|||
===Superscripted "th"=== |
|||
Creating centered headers is possible on a typewriter, even if the font is proportional. The typist can left-justify the header and then use the space bar to count the number of spaces from the end of the text to the right margin. In addition, the IBM Executive and Selectric have a [[kerning]] key that would give a more accurate measure of the whitespace. Once this number is determined, halving it gives the number of leading spaces for a centered header. The same centering will be achieved on different occasions if the paper is inserted flush to the paper guide, and the same count of spaces is applied. For an example of multiple centered lines produced using a proportionally spaced typewriter font, see the third page of the contemporary annual history of Bush's Alabama guard unit.<ref name="defenselink.mil">{{cite web | title=History | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | access-date=2005-12-21 }}</ref> |
|||
The default behavior of Microsoft Word is to format [[ordinal]] abbreviations (1st, 2nd, 10th) as superscripts, that use a smaller font size and are raised above the line of text (1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>, 10<sup>th</sup>). This automatic formatting can be blocked by leaving a space between the number and the letters, or it can be reversed using the ''undo'' command. On most typewriters of the 1970s, a superscripted ordinal was made by manually rolling the [[platen]] back slightly so that the letters could be typed above the line of text; however, the letters were the same size as the rest of the letters since they were produced with the same elements. Some typewriters had a special key for creating a smaller, superscripted "th", but this would be confined within the line of type, unless the typist manually rolled back the platen. |
|||
Word processors, by contrast, center text based on a computer algorithm using a fixed central reference point rather than the left margin on the typewriter as measured from the paper's edge. If the paper in a printer is flush to the left of the paper guide, then a word processor will achieve the same centering throughout a given page and on different pages. The bloggers asserted that it is unlikely that two documents produced 3 months apart by a manual centering process would exactly overlap. In the Killian memos the text matches perfectly when overlaid with a word processor-produced 3 line address block, and between the 3- and 2- line blocks of different memos.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} |
|||
Among the 6 memos produced by Bill Burkett there are 3 instances of a superscript "th" that are both smaller than the other characters ''and'' raised above the line of type (for example, (111<sup>th</sup>).{{ref|truthandduty.com.884}} ). There are also 7 instances where a space is inserted between the number and the letters, and 4 instances where "th" and "st" ordinals immediately follow a number but are not superscripted. {{ref|truthandduty.com.889}}{{ref|truthandduty.com.890}} Three of the documents use multiple formats for ordinals within the same document. |
|||
=== Curved apostrophes === |
|||
Marian Carr Knox recalled that during her time at the Guard she used a mechanical Olympia typewriter that did have a special 'th' key. (This 'th' character was the same weight as the other characters.) She said it was replaced by an IBM Selectric in the early 1970s. Several documents of unquestioned authenticity in the Bush records have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout; however, they are not raised above the level of the normal text.{{ref|www.usatoday.com.885}}{{ref|users.cis.net.888}} Like the 'th' key available for the Olympia, they go to the same height as the other lower-case letters. The official report of Bush's ANG unit for 1972, typed on a monospaced typewriter, contains numerous superscript footnotes, all apparently created by rolling the platen forward.{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.886}} |
|||
In several places, the documents use apostrophes such as in the words ''I'm'' and ''won't''. These are curved somewhat to the left, similar to the shape of a comma. Most typewriters of the era featured vertical apostrophes, rather than angled or curved ones.{{Citation needed|date=January 2008}} They were also used for both the opening and closing [[quotation marks|quotation mark]] embedded within another quotation instead of the curved forms available in modern day word processors. Compare the straight forms in |
|||
: The witness testified that "Jones yelled, 'Run!' before fleeing the scene" in court yesterday. |
|||
Because a superscripted ordinal mark using a smaller font ''and'' raised above the line of type could have been created in 1972 (using a typewriter with a small-font 'th' key ''and'' manually rolling the platen back), Philip Bouffard, an authority cited by critics on other issues, has stated of the superscript, "You can't just say that this is definitively the mark of a computer."{{ref|www.sfgate.com.887}} |
|||
to the curved forms in |
|||
===Centered headers=== |
|||
Bloggers at ChronicallyBiased {{ref|refbot.891}} noted that two of the memos, dated [[May 4]] and [[August 1]], [[1972]], feature a three-line centered heading which aligns exactly between two memos dated three months apart, and with a comparison document created using the auto-centering feature of Microsoft Word.{{ref|shapeofdays.typepad.com.892}} |
|||
: The witness testified that “Jones yelled, ‘Run!’ before fleeing the scene” in court yesterday. |
|||
Creating centered headers is possible on a typewriter, even if the font is proportional. The typist can left-justify the header and then use the space bar to count the number of spaces from the end of the text to the right margin. In addition, the IBM Executive and Selectric have a [[kerning]] key that would give a more accurate measure of the whitespace. Once this number is determined, halving it gives the number of leading spaces for a centered header. The same centering will be achieved on different occasions if the paper is inserted flush to the paper guide, and the same count of spaces is applied. For an example of multiple centered lines produced using a proportionally spaced typewriter font, see the third page of the contemporary annual history of Bush's Alabama guard unit.{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.893}} |
|||
The latter requires two separate glyphs for each pair of single and double quotation marks.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} |
|||
Word processors, by contrast, center text based on a computer algorithm using a fixed central reference point rather than the left margin on the typewriter as measured from the paper's edge. If the paper in a printer is flush to the left of the paper guide, then a word processor will achieve the same centering throughout a given page and on different pages. The bloggers asserted that it is unlikely that two documents produced 3 months apart by a manual centering process would exactly overlap. In the Killian memos the text matches perfectly when overlaid with a word processor-produced 3 line address block, and between the 3- and 2- line blocks of different memos. |
|||
===Curved apostrophes=== |
|||
In several places, the documents use apostrophes such as in the words ''I'm'' and ''won't''. These are curved somewhat to the left, similar to the shape of a comma. Allegedly, most typewriters of the era featured vertical apostrophes, rather than angled ones. However, for an example of curved apostrophes on documents produced by Bush's unit, see the 1973 "historical record".{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.894}} |
|||
Bloggers have frequently asserted the documents use curly, or "smart", quotes – distinct left and right double quotes. This feature is common on modern word processors. In fact, the documents use no quotation marks of any kind, either single or double. |
|||
=== Reproduction of the documents using modern technology === |
|||
[[Charles Johnson (blogger)|Charles Johnson]] of [[Little Green Footballs]] published an animated [[GIF]] overlaying one of the CBS memos with a version he typed in Microsoft Word on Mac OS X using the software's default settings{{ref|homepage.mac.com.895}}. When using other versions of Microsoft Word or alternative products such as WordPerfect, with their default settings, such an exact match is not usually obtained {{ref|littlegreenfootballs.com.896}}. The implication that the Killian documents were produced in Word was disputed by liberal sites such as [[Daily Kos]], which pointed out that there were letters and words in the original that were not aligned properly (including the superscript "th"), as well as variations in the boldness of letters, and even in the shapes of certain numbers. {{ref|www.dailykos.com.897}}{{ref|www.nytimes.com.898}} Daily Kos readers reported the existence of an inconsistent baseline in the original and divergent locations of the 'th' supercript {{ref|www.dailykos.com.899}}. |
|||
In response, the creator of the screenshot converted the Word document to a PDF and obtained a much closer match to the superscript {{ref|littlegreenfootballs.com.900}}. In Microsoft Word, the 'th' superscript is drawn in a different location on the screen than it is when printed. Computer typography expert Joseph Newcomer also reproduced the memos in Word, although he had to use a type size of 11.5 to reproduce the 18 August, 1973 memo, suggesting it may have been reduced during the multiple rounds of copying and faxing (12 to 11.5 points is a 96% reduction).{{ref|www.flounder.com.867}} |
|||
Another experiment showed that mulitple rounds of faxing, copying and scanning a Word document creates random irregularities in the baseline and the shapes of letters, resulting in noticeable differences when the copy is compared to the original.{{ref|www.poweroftheindividual.org.901}} One approach, using a custom computer algorithm to find the best alignment between the scanned memo and the Word version, seems to show an exact overlay, demonstrating how the low fidelity of the CBS documents can give the appearance of differences between individual letters in the two versions due to the random "thickening" introduced during the faxing and/or photocopying process {{ref|mysite.verizon.net.902}}. However, multiple rounds of copying could also obscure small details that distinguish similar fonts from each other, as argued by Dr. David Hailey (see below). |
|||
=== Reproduction using contemporary technology === |
|||
Thus far, no one has been able to reproduce the exact typography, spacing and layout of the Killian memos using technology available in 1972. The political weblog defeatjohnjohn.com{{ref|www.defeatjohnjohn.com.903}} offered a $10,000 reward to "anyone who can find for me a typewriter from 1972 that could have reasonably made those documents". Through a series of contributions and pledges from all over the world, the reward grew to more than $50,000 within weeks, giving the previously-small blog some surprising international publicity. (Despite extensive media coverage of this challenge, to date no one has been publicly able to accomplish the task and claim the money.) |
|||
Many analysts have said that they were not concerned with whether or not it was hypothetically possible to duplicate one or even a few of the typographic features with 1973 technology, but whether it was likely that all of them would have matched, at least as closely as the Microsoft Word samples, using a single typewriter that could plausibly have been in use at a remote national guard base in 1973 (and apparently wasn't used to type any other memos from that base). Several people with experience in operating either the IBM Executive or the Selectric Composer have said that they were much more complicated to operate than a regular typewriter and therefore were reserved for important correspondence within the companies where they had worked. |
|||
=== Similarity to contemporary documents === |
=== Similarity to contemporary documents === |
||
The Washington Post reported that "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents"{{ |
''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents."<ref name=WaPo14>{{cite news | title = Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers | newspaper = Washington Post |date=2004-09-14 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | access-date = 2007-10-05 }}</ref> This raises the question of the likelihood of a National Guard office having access to this type of equipment. |
||
According to ''The Washington Post'', "The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word..." (September 14, 2004).{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} |
|||
However, on [[September 24]], [[2004]] another PDF packet of Bush's Guard records appeared on a Pentagon site containing the full master list of the officially released records. {{ref|www.defenselink.mil.905}} The PDF packet is labeled "Documents Released on [[September 24]] [[2004]]," and the sixth document, dated [[February 19]], [[1971]] and titled "Appointment and Federal Recognition," is proportionally spaced. While it appears to be of a different font style than that used in the Killian memos, it is apparently the first officially released document that is in some sort of obviously proportionally spaced font. Several other proportionally space TexANG documents have since surfaced. |
|||
== Content and formatting == |
|||
According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'' on [[September 14]], [[2004]], "The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word..." |
|||
=== Ones versus Ells === |
|||
On [[September 13]], [[CBS Evening News]] introduced two new experts to vouch for the authenticity of the memos. One of the individuals, a software designer named Richard Katz, stated that a lower case ell was used in place of the numeral one in the memos. Further, he asserted that this would be difficult to duplicate on a computer today. Mr. Katz did not publicly explain the details of how he made this determination. |
|||
Some bloggers have speculated that Mr. Katz was referring to the fact that early typewriters did not have a one or zero key and that typists learned to use ells and the letter "O" in their place. One blogger has asserted that it is exceedingly difficult to discern a one from a lowercase ell even when dealing with a pristine original. Further, he stated that the spacing of a one better matches the documents than that of an ell when attempting to reproduce the documents in Microsoft Word.{{ref|www.corante.com.906}} |
|||
== Content and Formatting == |
|||
In addition to typography, aspects of the memos such as the content and formatting have been challenged. |
In addition to typography, aspects of the memos such as the content and formatting have been challenged. |
||
=== Signatures === |
=== Signatures === |
||
Of the documents, only the |
Of the documents, only the May 4 memo bears a full [[signature]]. CBS stated that document examiner Marcel Matley had determined the signature was authentic.<ref name="Report 1D">{{cite news | title=CBS Evening News Transcript|date=September 10, 2004 | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/1D.pdf | access-date=2006-03-20 | publisher=CBS News }}</ref> However, Matley told ''The Washington Post'' on September 14, "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them" because they are copies far removed from the original source.<ref name=WaPo14 /> Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, expressed the "limited opinion" that Killian did not sign or initial the documents.<ref>{{cite news | title=Questions mount on Guard memos' authenticity |publisher=The Washington Times |date=September 11, 2004 | url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-104821-5968r.htm | access-date=2006-04-01}}</ref> |
||
===Skepticism from Killian's family and others=== |
=== Skepticism from Killian's family and others === |
||
Jerry Killian's wife and son argued that their father never used typewriting equipment and would have written these memos by hand. The family also stated that Killian was not known for keeping personal memos and that he had been very pleased with George Bush's performance in his |
Jerry Killian's wife and son argued that their father never used typewriting equipment and would have written these memos by hand. The family also stated that Killian was not known for keeping personal memos and that he had been very pleased with [[George W. Bush]]'s performance in his TXANG unit.<ref>{{cite news | title=FOX Interviews Commander's Son|work=FOX News |date=September 10, 2004 | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132047,00.html | access-date=2006-11-27 | first=James | last=Rosen}}</ref> |
||
In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." |
In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes,<ref>{{Cite news|last=Balleza|first=Maureen|last2=Zernike|first2=Kate|date=2004-09-15|title=THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: NATIONAL GUARD; Memos on Bush Are Fake But Accurate, Typist Says|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/us/the-2004-campaign-national-guard-memos-on-bush-are-fake-but-accurate.html|access-date=2023-01-05|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used.<ref>{{cite news|title=Exhibit 9G. Transcript of interview with Marian Carr Knox|publisher=CBS News|access-date=2006-04-01|url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/9G.pdf}}</ref> |
||
Earl W. Lively, who at the time was the commanding officer at the Austin |
Earl W. Lively, who at the time was the commanding officer at the Austin TXANG facility was quoted in the ''[[Washington Times]]'' as saying, "They're forged as hell."<ref>{{cite news | title=Bush Guard papers 'forged'|work=The Washington Times |date=September 12, 2004 | url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040922-101433-4296r.htm | access-date=2006-11-27 }}</ref> |
||
===Mention of influence by retired officer=== |
=== Mention of influence by retired officer === |
||
Walter Staudt, cited in the memo dated August 18, 1973, as exerting pressure on officers to "sugar coat" their evaluations of Bush, had in fact retired from the service in March 1972.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}} |
|||
Staudt also denied being pressured to accept George W. Bush into the National Guard, in an exclusive interview with ABC ("Speaking Out," 17 September 2004): "'No one called me about taking George (W.) Bush into the Air National Guard,' he said. 'It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody. And I never pressured anybody about George (W.) Bush because I had no reason to,' Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public."<ref>{{cite news | title=Speaking Out |date=September 17, 2004 | url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=123458&page=1 | access-date=2006-04-01 | publisher=ABC News }}</ref> |
|||
Walter Staudt, cited in the memo dated [[August 18]], [[1973]] as exerting pressure on officers to "sugar coat" their evaluations of Bush, had in fact retired from the service in March of 1972, although it is possible that Staudt could have continued to exert influence after his retirement. |
|||
=== Mention of flight inquiry === |
|||
Staudt also denied being pressured to accept George W. Bush into the National Guard, in an exclusive interview with ABC ("Speaking Out," [[17 September]] [[2004]]): "'No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard,' he said. 'It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody. And I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to,' Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public."{{ref|abcnews.go.com.911}} |
|||
It is a matter of record that Lt Bush was suspended from flight status on August 1, 1972, for failure to complete a required annual physical.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001141.pdf|access-date=2006-04-01|date=September 29, 1972|title=Records from the Texas Air National Guard}}</ref> The Killian memo dated May 4, 1972, is an order to Lt Bush requiring him to report for his physical by May 14, thus making it appear that Lt Bush ignored a direct written order. Lt. Bush's last rating report, dated May 2, 1973, states that Lt Bush "cleared" the base on May 15, 1972, to head to Alabama.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records |title=Bush Records |publisher=Dod.mil |access-date=2010-05-24}}</ref> The Killian memo of August 1 called for a flight inquiry board to review Lt Bush's status. However, no records of this request or the flight inquiry board itself have been found. Regulations required such a review following the grounding of any pilot.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.glcq.com/regs| title = glcq.com}}</ref> |
|||
=== |
=== Mother's Day === |
||
Retired Colonel and former TXANG pilot William Campenni disputed the document dated Thursday May 4, 1972, which ordered Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed. The [[Ellington Field|Ellington]] Air Guard Base was closed for [[Mother's Day (United States)|Mother's Day]] the weekend of May 13–14. The next Air Guard drill weekend was May 20–21.<ref>{{cite news |
|||
It is a matter of record that Lt Bush was suspended from flight status on August 1, 1972 for failure to complete a required annual physical.{{ref|truthandduty.com.912}} The Killian memo dated May 4, 1972 is an order to Lt Bush requiring him to report for his physical by May 14, thus making it appear that Lt Bush ignored a direct written order. However, the order is in conflict with National Guard regulations at the time, which required pilots to take their annual physical before the last day of the month in which they were born (July, in Bush's case). The Killian memo of August 1 called for a flight inquiry board to review Lt Bush's status. However, no records of this request or the flight inquiry board itself have been found. Regulations required such a review following the grounding of any pilot. |
|||
| last =Campenni |
|||
| first =William |
|||
| title =Exposing CBS |
|||
| work =Washington Times |
|||
| publisher =News World Communications, Inc. |
|||
|date=2005-01-25 |
|||
| url =http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050117-100017-7792r.htm |
|||
| access-date =2007-09-21 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=54029&D=2005-01-18&SO=&HC=4 |title=Article |publisher=Rantburg.com |access-date=2010-05-24}}</ref> Bush's last day on base was Monday, May 15, 1972, according to the official record. |
|||
== Peter Tytell's analysis == |
|||
===Formatting=== |
|||
The CBS review panel led by [[Dick Thornburgh]] (a Republican and former [[U.S. Attorney General]]) and [[Louis Boccardi]] hired Peter Tytell, a leading document examiner, to analyze the four documents: |
|||
Some of the formatting of the Killian memos is inconsistent with the Air Force style manual in effect at the time. However, authenticated contemporaneous documents sometimes vary from the style manual as well. |
|||
* According to U.S. Air Force practice of the 1970s, the memo dated "04 May 1972" should have had the date formatted as "[[4 May]] 72". (Months abbreviated to three characters, leading zeros not used, and only the last two digits of the year until 2000). However, exceptions to these practiced did exist as this 1969 letter{{ref|truthandduty.com.913}} from Gen. Ayers regarding Bush demonstrates. Similarly, this 1973{{ref|truthandduty.com.914}} official memo from Gen. Straw, regarding an officer involved in the Bush case, is dated "[[2 February]] [[1973]]" — writing out both month and year in full. Bush's official flight records are also headed with full year notation.{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.915}} |
|||
* It has also been claimed that the terminology "MEMORANDUM FOR" was never used in the 1970s. However, Mary Mapes has offered evidence that this 1968 letter{{ref|truthandduty.com.916}} regarding Bush from Gen. Staudt uses that same heading, though the first several letters of the word "MEMORANDUM" are obscured in the photocopy. |
|||
* The abbreviations in this letter are incorrectly formatted, in that a period is used after military rank (1st Lt.). According to the Air Force style manual, periods are not used in military rank abbreviations. However in practice, military ranks are often listed with a period in Air Force documents.{{ref|www.google.com.917}} For an example of periods used in documents released during the controversy, see the signature of the commander on the official history of Bush's Alamaba unit, as well as several instances in that text.{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.918}} |
|||
* Killian's abbreviation for Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) includes periods after each capital letter. Allegedly, it would have been unusual to use periods in this acronym. In official documents of the squadron, similar abbreviations are presented with periods, such as E.I. Squadron, which is also often written without periods.{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.919}} In official documents, the phrase is also at times written out in shorthand, such as "Ftr Intcp" rather than with an acronym.{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.920}} The other four acronyms on that same document are used without periods. |
|||
* In paragraph 1, the phrase "not later than" is spelled out, followed by (NLT). NLT was, and is, a widely recognized abbreviation for "not later than" throughout all military services. However in practice, military documents quite frequently use both the acronym and the full version of the phrase.{{ref|www.google.com.921}} |
|||
* According to an ex-Guard commander, retired Col. Bobby W. Hodges, the Guard never used the abbreviation "grp" for "group" or "OETR" for an officer evaluation review, as in the CBS documents. The correct terminology, he said, is "gp" and "OER."{{ref|www.washingtonpost.com.922}} In a 1994 DOD document, "grp" is specified as a DOD abbreviation for "group".{{ref|www.jcte.jcs.mil.923}} The "grp" abbreviation is also often used in military practice.{{ref|www.google.com.924}} Usage in the memos varies; "gp" is used at times.{{ref|truthandduty.com.925}} A "T" is used at one point in the acronym for "officer evaluation review". It is not clear what the intent of an extra letter would be (OETR); however, T is situated next to the correct letter, R, on a standard US keyboard. |
|||
* Lieutenant Colonel Killian's signature element is incorrect for letters prepared in the 1970s. This letter uses a three-line signature element, which was normally not used by officers below staff rank. Examples of other contempoaneous variations from the standard include the three-line signature of Major Herber or that of Capt. Currie on separate documents concering Bush's appointment as 2nd Lt.{{ref|www.defenselink.mil.926}} as well as Heber's signature on Bush's suspension from flying status. {{ref|www.defenselink.mil.927}} |
|||
* Finally, the signature element is placed far to the right, instead of being left-justified. The placement of the signature element to the right was allegedly not used or directed by Air Force standards until almost 20 years after the date of this letter. However, as contrary evidence, this 1969 memo{{ref|truthandduty.com.928}} and this 1971 memo{{ref|truthandduty.com.929}} from Gen. Ayers each include a right signature block. |
|||
:concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar (from a previously released TexANG document from 1968) was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.<ref>{{cite news | title=Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4 | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf | access-date=2007-02-03 | publisher=CBS News | page=1 }}</ref> |
|||
===Paper size=== |
|||
It is possible that a photocopy of the memos onto letter-size paper might have shown thin border lines or other artifacts had they been typed on the smaller official military stock of the time. The central areas of the documents are heavily "speckled" from the faxing and copying process, while the left and right margins are not; no solid lines are apparent.{{ref|truthandduty.com.930}} In 1921, two different committees decided on standard paper sizes for the United States. A group called the Permanent Conference on Printing established the 8 by 10½ size as the general U.S. government letterhead standard, while a Committee on the Simplification of Paper Sizes came up with the more familiar 8½ by 11 size now known as US Letter.{{ref|www.afandpa.org.931}} The U.S. military used the smaller size up until the early 1980s. |
|||
== See also == |
|||
==Independent experts== |
|||
* [[Questioned document examination]] |
|||
The majority of independent document authentication experts contacted by the major news media and bloggers have indicated a strong likelihood that the Killian memos are forgeries constructed with the use of modern word processing software and printer technology, and "aged" using multiple generations of copying to blur the characters. Several are "certain" that the documents are fraudulent. |
|||
* [[Dan Rather]] |
|||
* {{annotated link|John F. Kennedy document hoax }} — another forgery case about one decade earlier; compare the [[typewriter#Forensic examination|typewriter forensics]] issues by which the alleged document age was [[falsifiability|falsified]] via detectable [[anachronism]]s |
|||
== References == |
|||
In contrast, Dr. David Hailey, who holds a doctorate in technical communication and is an associate professor and director of a media lab at Utah State University, stated in October 2004 that "evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter."<ref>{{cite web | title=Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 29, 2004 version) |author=David Hailey | url=http://wizbangblog.com/docs/Bush_Memos.pdf | accessdate=2006-03-08}}</ref>(September 29, 2004 version) |
|||
{{reflist|2}} |
|||
== External links == |
|||
Hailey's report drew fire from the blog Wizbangblog.com, which noted that a superscript '"th" in Figure 5, a comparison of a one of the Killian memos with a version created by Dr. Hailey using the font "Typewriter", appeared to have been digitally altered. Paul at wizbang also accused Dr. Hailey of using a computer and the font "Typewriter" rather than a physical typewriter, as the report implied.<ref>{{cite web | title=Fact checking the Boston Globe–in advance | publisher=wizbangblog (blog)| url=http://wizbangblog.com/2004/09/30/fact-checking-the-boston-globe-in-advance.php | accessdate=2006-03-08}}</ref> Hailey altered the report the next day to clarify that he had not typed his comparison document, but had used a computer and a digital typeface in the ''ITC Typewriter'' family.<ref>{{cite web | title=Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 30, 2004 version)| author=David Hailey | url=http://wizbangblog.com/docs/Bush_Memos_v2.pdf | accessdate=2006-03-08}}</ref>(September 30, 2004 version) |
|||
=== Primary source documents === |
|||
Hailey was the subject of an email campaign demanding his dismissal from the university after bloggers alleged that he fabricated portions of the study.<ref>{{cite news | title=Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers | url=http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65250,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=Wired magazine }}</ref> Hailey's critics also pointed out that he donated $250 to Kerry's campaign. |
|||
Links to large [[Portable Document Format|PDF]] documents. |
|||
Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a document expert who produced an extensive analysis asserting the memos were forgeries, called Hailey's study "deeply flawed" <ref>{{cite web | title=The Hailey Connection | url=http://www.flounder.com/bush2b.htm | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref>. After reading both Hailey's study and Newcomer's analysis, Thomas Phinney, a typography expert employed by Adobe, concurred with Newcomer. |
|||
In November, 2005, Dr. Hailey released a new version of his report in which he argued that the Killian documents were produced on a typewriter using a version of Press Roman.<ref>{{cite web | title=Index of /bush_memo_study |author=David Hailey| url=http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/ | accessdate=2005-12-21 }}</ref> |
|||
==External links== |
|||
=== Primary source documents === (links to large [[Portable Document Format|PDF]] documents) |
|||
The four '''CBS News''' Killian documents: |
The four '''CBS News''' Killian documents: |
||
*[ |
* [https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf Memorandum, May 4, 1972] |
||
*[ |
* [https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf Memo to File, May 19, 1972] |
||
*[ |
* [https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf Memorandum For Record, August 1, 1972] |
||
*[ |
* [https://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf Memo to File, August 18, 1973] |
||
The six '''USA Today''' Killian documents: |
The six '''USA Today''' Killian documents: |
||
*[ |
* [https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf USA Today Killian documents] |
||
The CBS four and USA Today six are the documents supplied by [[Bill Burkett]] to [[Mary Mapes]]. |
|||
'''Peter Tytell's''' analysis from the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report, [http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf Appendix 4] |
|||
* [https://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-1_2004_Personnel_File.pdf Bush enlistment documents] (USA Today) Page 31 is a 3 Nov 1970 memo from the office of Lt Col Killian on promotion of Lt Bush. |
|||
'''Peter Tytell's''' analysis from the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report, [http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf Appendix 4] |
|||
===News items=== |
|||
*[http://www.cnsnews.com/Politics/archive/200409/POL20040909d.html "60 Minutes Documents on Bush Might Be Fake"] CNSNews.com – [[September 09]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909.html "Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service"] ABC News – [[September 9]], [[2004]] |
|||
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush"] Washington Post – [[September 10]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html "False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service"] ABC News – [[September 10]], [[2004]] |
|||
* [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7096 "Anatomy of a Forgery"] American Spectator – [[September 10]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12809-2004Sep10.html "Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush"] Washington Post – [[September 11]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guard11sep11,1,6728631.story "Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story"] Los Angeles Times – [[September 11]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html "More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic"] The Seattle Times – [[September 11]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3833 "Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation"] The American Thinker – [[September 11]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html "The X Files Of Lt. Bush: A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record"] Time – [[September 13]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers"] Washington Post – [[September 14]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/guard_091404.html Washington Post: A Pentagon memo next to one of CBS's Killian memo] – [[September 14]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html "Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags'"] Washington Post – Wednesday, [[September 15]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-guard15sep15,1,159890.story "Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush"] Los Angeles Times – [[September 15]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/15/for_the_record/ ''Boston Globe'' apologizes for taking misquoting two experts about memos] |
|||
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?ex=1095912000&en=3f67b230dff29e57&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1 "Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says'] NY Times – [[September 15]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's"] ''Washington Post'' – [[September 16]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html "Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect"] ''Washington Post'' – [[September 16]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html "'Buckhead', who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney"] Seattle Times – [[September 17]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html The Paper Trail: A Comparison of Documents] by The Washington Post print edition. |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18.html "In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries"] ''Washington Post'' – [[September 19]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html Graphic comparison of all the CBS memos with officially released Killian memos] ''Washington Post'' – [[September 19]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20CND-GUAR.html?hp "CBS Says It Can't Vouch for Bush Documents"] – ''New York Times'' – [[September 20]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-guard-scoops-skepticism_x.htm "Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded"] – timeline from ''USA Today'' – [[September 21]], [[2004]] |
|||
*[http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65250,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html "Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers"] ''[[Wired]]'', [[October 7]], [[2004]] |
|||
=== News items === |
|||
* [https://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909.html "Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service"] ABC News – September 9, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush"] Washington Post – September 10, 2004 |
|||
* [https://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html "False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service"] ABC News – September 10, 2004 |
|||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060215075817/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7096 "Anatomy of a Forgery"] American Spectator – September 10, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12809-2004Sep10.html "Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush"] Washington Post – September 11, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guard11sep11,1,6728631.story "Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story"] Los Angeles Times – September 11, 2004 |
|||
* [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html "More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic"] The Seattle Times – September 11, 2004 |
|||
* [https://archive.today/20130104234427/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html "The X Files Of Lt. Bush: A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record"] Time – September 13, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers"] Washington Post – September 14, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/guard_091404.html Washington Post: A Pentagon memo next to one of CBS's Killian memo] – September 14, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21675-2004Sep14.html "Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags'"] Washington Post – Wednesday, September 15, 2004 |
|||
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVaNSzEgEw "Dan Rather interviews Marion Carr Knox - September 15, 2004"] Youtube |
|||
* [https://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-guard15sep15,1,159890.story "Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush"] Los Angeles Times – September 15, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/15/for_the_record/ ''Boston Globe'' apologizes for taking misquoting two experts about memos] |
|||
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?ex=1095912000&en=3f67b230dff29e57&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1 "Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says'] NY Times – September 15, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's"] ''Washington Post'' – September 16, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html "Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect"] ''Washington Post'' – September 16, 2004 |
|||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070809230831/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002039080_buckhead18.html "'Buckhead', who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney"] Seattle Times – September 17, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html The Paper Trail: A Comparison of Documents] by The Washington Post print edition. |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31727-2004Sep18.html "In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries"] ''Washington Post'' – September 19, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html Graphic comparison of all the CBS memos with officially released Killian memos] ''Washington Post'' – September 19, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20CND-GUAR.html?hp "CBS Says It Can't Vouch for Bush Documents"] – ''New York Times'' – September 20, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-21-guard-scoops-skepticism_x.htm "Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded"] – timeline from ''USA Today'' – September 21, 2004 |
|||
* [https://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65250,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html "Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers"] ''[[Wired magazine|Wired]]'', October 7, 2004 |
|||
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050104071826/http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/1/pein-blog.asp Blog-gate] [[Columbia Journalism Review]] |
|||
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/10/DI2005111001414.html?nav=nsc Transcript of online Q&A with Mary Mapes, November 11, 2005, by washingtonpost.com] |
|||
{{George W. Bush}} |
|||
=== Blog and other links === |
|||
{{60 Minutes}} |
|||
*[http://cjr.org/issues/2005/1/pein-blog.asp Blog-gate] [[Columbia Journalism Review]] |
|||
*[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210516/posts?q=1&&page=101#107] and [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/posts#47] The original blog posts which called attention to the integrity of the documents. |
|||
*[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526 Original overlay created by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs], and [http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12544 "print to file" version of the same experiment] |
|||
*[http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/newcomer/index.htm Typography Expert Joseph M. Newcomer's take on the memos] |
|||
*[http://qando.net/archives/004070.htm "A Compendium of the Evidence"] lists the various suspicious elements of the memos. |
|||
*[http://www.rathergate.com/ Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate.com] Anti-authenticity site |
|||
*[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603 Kos blog] disputing forgery arguments |
|||
*[http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2004/09/ibm-executive-typewriters.html Amygdala blog] disputing claims memos could not be from 1970s |
|||
*[http://aheckofa.com/FoolMeOnce/CBSBushMemos.html So what IS the deal with those darn CBS Memos?] A detailed analysis supporting authenticity. |
|||
*[http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031235195X ''Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power''], by Mary Mapes, November 2005, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 031235195X |
|||
*[http://truthandduty.com/ Mary Mapes – website for her book], including a documents section |
|||
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/10/DI2005111001414.html?nav=nsc Transcript of online Q&A with Mary Mapes, [[November 11]] [[2005]], by washingtonpost.com] |
|||
==References== |
|||
<references/> |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
# {{note|wwwimage.cbsnews.com.865}} {{cite news | title=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf | url=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=CBS News }} |
|||
# {{note|www.creativepro.com.866}} {{cite web | title=creativepro.com - The Digital Dish: Making Headlines, Not Setting Them | url=http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21939.html?cprose=5-39 | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.flounder.com.867}} {{cite web | title=Bush Guard Documents Forgeries | url=http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.bluelemur.com.868}} {{cite web | title=http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=324 | url=http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=324 | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.869}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.870}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc9_1-3.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc9_1-3.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|news.findlaw.com.871}} {{cite web | title=http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/ftnsrpts.pdf | url=http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/ftnsrpts.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.lbjlib.utexas.edu.872}} {{cite web | title= White House memorandum | url=http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/NSAMs/nsam273.asp | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.cnsnews.com.873}} {{cite news | title='60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake -- 09/09/2004 | url=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040909d.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=Cybercast News Service }} |
|||
# {{note|www.cnsnews.com.874}} {{cite news | title='60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake -- 09/09/2004 (See above) | url=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040909d.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=Cybercast News Service }} |
|||
# {{note|www.washingtonpost.com.875}} {{cite news | title=Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush (washingtonpost.com) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9_2.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The Washington Post }} |
|||
# {{note|www.washingtonpost.com.876}} {{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The Washington Post }} |
|||
# {{note|www.time.com.877}} {{cite news | title=TIME.com | url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040920-695873,00.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=TIME }} |
|||
# {{note|www.washingtonpost.com.878}} {{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The Washington Post }} |
|||
# {{note|shapeofdays.typepad.com.879}} {{cite web | title=The Shape of Days | url=http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.dailykos.com.880}} {{cite web | title=Daily Kos :: Comments TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong | url=http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/9/10/34914/1603/348?mode=alone;showrate=1#348 | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.indcjournal.com.881}} {{cite web | title=INDC Journal: EXACTLY | url=http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000852.php | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|qando.net.882}} {{cite web | title=QandO: A compendium of the Evidence | url=http://qando.net/archives/004070.htm | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.883}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21}} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.884}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.usatoday.com.885}} {{cite news | title=http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf | url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=USA Today }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.886}} {{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.sfgate.com.887}} {{cite news | title=Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos / Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used (See above) | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/11/MNGO68NEKR1.DTL | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=San Francisco Chronicle }} |
|||
# {{note|users.cis.net.888}} {{cite web | title=http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif | url=http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.889}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf (See above) | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.890}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|refbot.891}} {{cite web | title=Chronically Biased - Keeping Tabs On The Houston Chronicle | url=http://www.chronicallybiased.com | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|shapeofdays.typepad.com.892}} {{cite web | title=The Shape of Days (See above) | url=http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.893}} {{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.894}} {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/historical_record_147th_fighterintergrp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|homepage.mac.com.895}} {{cite web | title=http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif | url=http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|littlegreenfootballs.com.896}} {{cite web | title=lgf: Word 5 vs. Word 2004 | url=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12677_Word_5_vs._Word_2004 | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.dailykos.com.897}} {{cite web | title=Daily Kos: State of the Nation (See above) | url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603 | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.nytimes.com.898}} {{cite news | title=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14guard.html?pagewanted=2 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14guard.html?pagewanted=2 | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The New York Times }} |
|||
# {{note|www.dailykos.com.899}} {{cite web | title=Daily Kos: State of the Nation (See above) | url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603 | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|littlegreenfootballs.com.900}} {{cite web | title=lgf: Yet Another CBS Document Experiment | url=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12544_Yet_Another_CBS_Document_Experiment | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.poweroftheindividual.org.901}} {{cite web | title=TUMNZ: Fau^Hxed Bush Memos | url=http://www.poweroftheindividual.org/blog/2004/09/fauhxed-bush-memos.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|mysite.verizon.net.902}} <nowiki>http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr/</nowiki> URL broken as of [[2006]]-[[01-04]] (no copy available in the [[Internet Archive]]). |
|||
# {{note|www.defeatjohnjohn.com.903}} {{cite web | title=DJJ | url=http://www.defeatjohnjohn.com/ | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.washingtonpost.com.904}} {{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The Washington Post }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.905}} {{cite web | title=Bush Records (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.corante.com.906}} {{cite web | title=http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/006148.php | url=http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/006148.php | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.nytimes.com.907}} {{cite news | title=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The New York Times }} |
|||
# {{note|www.washingtonpost.com.908}} {{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The Washington Post }} |
|||
# {{note|www.washingtontimes.com.909}} {{cite web | title=Questions mount on Guard memos' authenticity - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - [[September 11]] [[2004]] | url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-104821-5968r.htm | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.nytimes.com.910}} {{cite news | title=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?pagewanted=print&position=top | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?pagewanted=print&position=top | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The New York Times }} |
|||
# {{note|abcnews.go.com.911}} {{cite news | title= ABC News "Speaking Out" | url=http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/staudt_bush_040917-1.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=ABC News }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.912}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001141.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001141.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.913}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf (See above) | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.914}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc8.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc8.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.915}} {{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/BushFlightRecords.pdf | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/BushFlightRecords.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.916}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc2_1-5.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc2_1-5.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.google.com.917}} {{cite web | title=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=col+site%3Aaf..mil&btnG=Search | url=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=col+site%3Aaf..mil&btnG=Search | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.918}} {{cite web | title=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.919}} {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/historical_record_147th_fighterintergrp.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.920}} {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/personnel_pt6.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.google.com.921}} {{cite web | title=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=nlt+%22not+later+than%22+site%3A.mil&btnG=Search | url=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=nlt+%22not+later+than%22+site%3A.mil&btnG=Search | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.washingtonpost.com.922}} {{cite news | title=Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13_2.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=The Washington Post }} |
|||
# {{note|www.jcte.jcs.mil.923}} {{cite web | title=ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, and DEFINITIONS | url=http://www.jcte.jcs.mil/htdocs/dodinfo/acronyms/g.txt.html | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.google.com.924}} {{cite web | title=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=grp+group+site%3Amil++&btnG=Search | url=http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=grp+group+site%3Amil++&btnG=Search | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.925}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf (See above) | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.926}} {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/personnel_pt1.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.defenselink.mil.927}} {{cite web | title=ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above) | url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/personnel_pt5.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.928}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc6.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc6.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.929}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf (See above) | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|truthandduty.com.930}} {{cite web | title=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001193.pdf | url=http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001193.pdf | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.afandpa.org.931}} {{cite web | title=AF&PA : The U.S. Standard Paper Size | url=http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Pulp_and_Paper/Fun_Facts/The_U_S__Standard_Paper_Size.htm | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|wizbang.001}}{{cite web | title=Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 29, 2004 version) | url=http://wizbangblog.com/docs/Bush_Memos.pdf | accessdate=2006-03-08}} |
|||
# {{note|wizbang.002}}{{cite web | title=Fact checking the Boston Globe–in advance | url=http://wizbangblog.com/2004/09/30/fact-checking-the-boston-globe-in-advance.php | accessdate=2006-03-08}} |
|||
# {{note|wizbang.003}}{{cite web | title=Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 30, 2004 version) | url=http://wizbangblog.com/docs/Bush_Memos_v2.pdf | accessdate=2006-03-08}} |
|||
# {{note|imrl.usu.edu.932}} {{cite web | title=Index of /bush_memo_study | url=http://imrl.usu.edu/bush_memo_study/ | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
# {{note|www.wired.com.933}} {{cite news | title=Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers | url=http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65250,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html | accessdate=2005-12-21 | publisher=Wired magazine }} |
|||
# {{note|www.flounder.com.934}} {{cite web | title=The Hailey Connection | url=http://www.flounder.com/bush2b.htm | accessdate=2005-12-21 }} |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* [[George W. Bush military service controversy]] |
|||
* [[Questioned document examination]] |
|||
* [[Dan Rather]] |
|||
[[Category:United States presidential election |
[[Category:2004 United States presidential election]] |
||
[[Category:Killian documents controversy]] |
Latest revision as of 19:04, 26 November 2024
During the Killian documents controversy in 2004, the authenticity of the documents themselves was disputed by a variety of individuals and groups. Proof of authenticity is not possible without original documents, and since CBS used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards would be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals. However, proving documents inauthentic does not depend on the availability of originals, and the validity of these photocopied documents has been challenged on a number of grounds,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] ranging from anachronisms in their typography to issues pertaining to their content.
Typography
[edit]In the initial hours and days after the CBS broadcast, most of the criticism of the documents' authenticity centered on the fact that they did not look like typical typewritten documents and appeared very similar to documents produced with modern word-processing software. These criticisms, first raised by bloggers,[9][10] were taken up by outlets of the mainstream press, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, and others, who sought opinions from multiple experts. The arguments and findings are summarized below.
Proportional fonts
[edit]One of the initial doubts bloggers raised about the memos was the use of proportional fonts (as opposed to a monospaced typeface, where all glyphs have a single, standard width). Most typewriters in 1972 used fixed-width fonts, and, according to The Washington Post,[11] all of the authenticated documents from the TexANG were typed using fixed-width fonts commonly associated with typewriters.
Several experts interviewed by the media suggested that the proportional fonts in the documents indicated likely forgery. John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com, stated that word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time (equivalent to $146,000 in 2023).[citation needed] William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques.[12] The Washington Post also indicated the presence of proportional fonts as suspicious because "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents".[11]
Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City with typewriter repair experience from 1973 to 1985, said experts making the claim that typewriters were incapable of producing the memos "are full of crap. They just don't know." He said there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he said were not unusual — for creating the superscript th.[13]
Thomas W. Phinney II, program manager for fonts at Adobe Systems, responded to Glennon's statement by saying that the memos could not have been produced with either the IBM Executive or IBM Selectric Composer, which had been suggested as possibilities, due to differences in letter width and spacing.[11] Phinney says that each time a typeface was redeveloped for mechanical technologies with different width factors, the width and designs are altered, which is why even if Press Roman had been intended to look like Times Roman, the result is significantly different.[14] Phinney suggests that the real typist prevented Word from auto-formatting "th" in superscript by typing and deleting a space in some cases but in other cases did not use the space or left it in the document.[8]
Phinney's analysis was based on the fact that the typography of the Killian documents could be closely matched with a modern personal computer and printer using Microsoft Word with the default font (Times New Roman) and other settings. Therefore, the equipment with which the Killian documents were actually produced must have been capable of matching the typographical characteristics produced by this modern technology.
As Phinney explained, the letterspacing of the Times New Roman font used by Microsoft Word with a modern personal computer and printer employs a system of 18 units relative to the letter height (em), with common characters being 5 to 17 units wide. (The technology allows even finer variability of character widths, but the 18 unit system was chosen for compatibility with the Linotype phototypesetting and earlier hot-metal versions of the font.) In contrast, the variability of character widths available on early 1970s typewriters using proportional letterspacing was more limited, due to the mechanical technology employed. The most sophisticated of these machines, the IBM Selectric Composer, used a system of 9 units relative to the letter height, in which all characters were 3 to 9 units wide. Less complex machines used fewer widths.
Differences in individual character widths accumulate over the length of a line, so that comparatively small differences would become readily apparent. Because of the differing character widths employed, the letterspacing exhibited by the Killian documents (matching that produced by a modern computer and printer) could not have been produced with a mechanical typewriter using proportional letterspacing in the early 1970s. At the time the documents were purportedly created, the matching letterspacing could only have been produced using phototypesetting or hot-metal printing. Since it is not a realistic possibility that Killian would have had these documents printed, Phinney concludes that they are almost certainly modern forgeries.[8]
Phinney has long offered $1,000 "to anybody who can produce an office-level device that was available in 1972 that can replicate the relative line endings of those memos" but no-one has ever tried to do that.[8]
Desktop magazine in Australia analysed the documents in its November 2004 issue and concluded that the typeface was a post-1985 version of Times Roman, rather than Times New Roman, both of which are different in detail to IBM Press Roman.
Inter-character spacing
[edit]Joseph Newcomer, who helped pioneer electronic typesetting and word processing software,[15][16] claims that the memos display a simple alternative to kerning characteristic of TrueType fonts but not available on any office equipment in 1972. For example, in words containing "fr", TrueType moves the "r" left to tuck it in under the top part of the "f".[11] The Weekly Standard called Newcomer's explanation the "definitive account" of why the documents were "necessarily forgeries."[17] The Washington Post quoted Newcomer in an article regarding questions about the authenticity of the papers.[18]
Centered headers
[edit]Creating centered headers is possible on a typewriter, even if the font is proportional. The typist can left-justify the header and then use the space bar to count the number of spaces from the end of the text to the right margin. In addition, the IBM Executive and Selectric have a kerning key that would give a more accurate measure of the whitespace. Once this number is determined, halving it gives the number of leading spaces for a centered header. The same centering will be achieved on different occasions if the paper is inserted flush to the paper guide, and the same count of spaces is applied. For an example of multiple centered lines produced using a proportionally spaced typewriter font, see the third page of the contemporary annual history of Bush's Alabama guard unit.[19]
Word processors, by contrast, center text based on a computer algorithm using a fixed central reference point rather than the left margin on the typewriter as measured from the paper's edge. If the paper in a printer is flush to the left of the paper guide, then a word processor will achieve the same centering throughout a given page and on different pages. The bloggers asserted that it is unlikely that two documents produced 3 months apart by a manual centering process would exactly overlap. In the Killian memos the text matches perfectly when overlaid with a word processor-produced 3 line address block, and between the 3- and 2- line blocks of different memos.[citation needed]
Curved apostrophes
[edit]In several places, the documents use apostrophes such as in the words I'm and won't. These are curved somewhat to the left, similar to the shape of a comma. Most typewriters of the era featured vertical apostrophes, rather than angled or curved ones.[citation needed] They were also used for both the opening and closing quotation mark embedded within another quotation instead of the curved forms available in modern day word processors. Compare the straight forms in
- The witness testified that "Jones yelled, 'Run!' before fleeing the scene" in court yesterday.
to the curved forms in
- The witness testified that “Jones yelled, ‘Run!’ before fleeing the scene” in court yesterday.
The latter requires two separate glyphs for each pair of single and double quotation marks.[citation needed]
Similarity to contemporary documents
[edit]The Washington Post reported that "of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents."[18] This raises the question of the likelihood of a National Guard office having access to this type of equipment.
According to The Washington Post, "The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word..." (September 14, 2004).[citation needed]
Content and formatting
[edit]In addition to typography, aspects of the memos such as the content and formatting have been challenged.
Signatures
[edit]Of the documents, only the May 4 memo bears a full signature. CBS stated that document examiner Marcel Matley had determined the signature was authentic.[20] However, Matley told The Washington Post on September 14, "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them" because they are copies far removed from the original source.[18] Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, expressed the "limited opinion" that Killian did not sign or initial the documents.[21]
Skepticism from Killian's family and others
[edit]Jerry Killian's wife and son argued that their father never used typewriting equipment and would have written these memos by hand. The family also stated that Killian was not known for keeping personal memos and that he had been very pleased with George W. Bush's performance in his TXANG unit.[22]
In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes,[23] and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used.[24]
Earl W. Lively, who at the time was the commanding officer at the Austin TXANG facility was quoted in the Washington Times as saying, "They're forged as hell."[25]
Mention of influence by retired officer
[edit]Walter Staudt, cited in the memo dated August 18, 1973, as exerting pressure on officers to "sugar coat" their evaluations of Bush, had in fact retired from the service in March 1972.[citation needed]
Staudt also denied being pressured to accept George W. Bush into the National Guard, in an exclusive interview with ABC ("Speaking Out," 17 September 2004): "'No one called me about taking George (W.) Bush into the Air National Guard,' he said. 'It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody. And I never pressured anybody about George (W.) Bush because I had no reason to,' Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public."[26]
Mention of flight inquiry
[edit]It is a matter of record that Lt Bush was suspended from flight status on August 1, 1972, for failure to complete a required annual physical.[27] The Killian memo dated May 4, 1972, is an order to Lt Bush requiring him to report for his physical by May 14, thus making it appear that Lt Bush ignored a direct written order. Lt. Bush's last rating report, dated May 2, 1973, states that Lt Bush "cleared" the base on May 15, 1972, to head to Alabama.[28] The Killian memo of August 1 called for a flight inquiry board to review Lt Bush's status. However, no records of this request or the flight inquiry board itself have been found. Regulations required such a review following the grounding of any pilot.[29]
Mother's Day
[edit]Retired Colonel and former TXANG pilot William Campenni disputed the document dated Thursday May 4, 1972, which ordered Bush to report for a flight physical not later than May 14. According to Campenni, the squadron commander supposedly ordered Bush to report on a weekend when the base was closed. The Ellington Air Guard Base was closed for Mother's Day the weekend of May 13–14. The next Air Guard drill weekend was May 20–21.[30][31] Bush's last day on base was Monday, May 15, 1972, according to the official record.
Peter Tytell's analysis
[edit]The CBS review panel led by Dick Thornburgh (a Republican and former U.S. Attorney General) and Louis Boccardi hired Peter Tytell, a leading document examiner, to analyze the four documents:
- concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar (from a previously released TexANG document from 1968) was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic.[32]
See also
[edit]- Questioned document examination
- Dan Rather
- John F. Kennedy document hoax – 1993 American political hoax — another forgery case about one decade earlier; compare the typewriter forensics issues by which the alleged document age was falsified via detectable anachronisms
References
[edit]- ^ "The Bush National Guard Story Lives!". motherjones.com.
- ^ "Are the Bush Documents Fakes?". xavier.edu.
- ^ McArdle, Megan (24 July 2014). "Ex-'60 Minutes' Producer Is No Hollywood Hero". Bloomberg.com – via www.bloomberg.com.
- ^ "Killian Finale?". washingtonmonthly.com. 15 September 2004.
- ^ "Truth or Consequences". texasmonthly.com. 21 January 2013.
- ^ Levin, Josh (10 September 2004). "Rather Suspicious" – via Slate.
- ^ "CBS News admits Bush documents can't be verified". NBC News. 21 September 2004.
- ^ a b c d Fleishman, Glenn (13 September 2017). "Meet the Font Detectives Who Ferret Out Fakery". Wired.com.
- ^ Jenny Attiyeh (3 February 2005). "Who's got the power?". The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
Powerline, a conservative blog, was one of the first to raise questions about the authenticity of memos on President Bush's National Guard service, broadcast by CBS on "60 Minutes."
- ^ "Rathergate". Frontline (American TV program). Public Broadcasting Service. 2007. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
Scott Johnson [...] Power Line [...] Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? [...] I called that post "The 61st Minute,"
- ^ a b c d Dobbs, Michael; Kurtz, Howard (September 14, 2004). "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-02-20.
- ^ "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush". The Washington Post. September 10, 2004. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
- ^ "The X Files Of Lt. Bush". TIME. September 13, 2004. Archived from the original on January 4, 2013. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
- ^ Phinney, Thomas (3 August 2006). "Bush Guard memos used Times Roman, not Times New Roman". The Typekit Blog. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
- ^ Smith, Pohla (September 20, 2004). "Newsmaker: Joseph M. Newcomer / Computer specialist is in the thick of a pitched-font battle over documents". Post-Gazette.
- ^ Reddy, D.R.; W. Broadley; L.D. Erman; R. Johnsson; J. Newcomer; G. Robertson; J. Wright (December 1972). "A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation". Information Processing Letters. 1 (6): 246–251. doi:10.1016/0020-0190(72)90021-X.
- ^ Jonathan V. Last (2004-09-27). "What Blogs Have Wrought". Archived from the original on September 20, 2004.
- ^ a b c "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers". Washington Post. 2004-09-14. Retrieved 2007-10-05.
- ^ "History" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21.
- ^ "CBS Evening News Transcript" (PDF). CBS News. September 10, 2004. Retrieved 2006-03-20.
- ^ "Questions mount on Guard memos' authenticity". The Washington Times. September 11, 2004. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- ^ Rosen, James (September 10, 2004). "FOX Interviews Commander's Son". FOX News. Retrieved 2006-11-27.
- ^ Balleza, Maureen; Zernike, Kate (2004-09-15). "THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: NATIONAL GUARD; Memos on Bush Are Fake But Accurate, Typist Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-01-05.
- ^ "Exhibit 9G. Transcript of interview with Marian Carr Knox" (PDF). CBS News. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- ^ "Bush Guard papers 'forged'". The Washington Times. September 12, 2004. Retrieved 2006-11-27.
- ^ "Speaking Out". ABC News. September 17, 2004. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- ^ "Records from the Texas Air National Guard" (PDF). September 29, 1972. Retrieved 2006-04-01.
- ^ "Bush Records". Dod.mil. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
- ^ "glcq.com".
- ^ Campenni, William (2005-01-25). "Exposing CBS". Washington Times. News World Communications, Inc. Retrieved 2007-09-21.
- ^ "Article". Rantburg.com. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
- ^ "Thornburg-Boccardi Report, Appendix 4" (PDF). CBS News. p. 1. Retrieved 2007-02-03.
External links
[edit]Primary source documents
[edit]Links to large PDF documents.
The four CBS News Killian documents:
- Memorandum, May 4, 1972
- Memo to File, May 19, 1972
- Memorandum For Record, August 1, 1972
- Memo to File, August 18, 1973
The six USA Today Killian documents:
The CBS four and USA Today six are the documents supplied by Bill Burkett to Mary Mapes.
- Bush enlistment documents (USA Today) Page 31 is a 3 Nov 1970 memo from the office of Lt Col Killian on promotion of Lt Bush.
Peter Tytell's analysis from the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report, Appendix 4
News items
[edit]- "Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service" ABC News – September 9, 2004
- "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush" Washington Post – September 10, 2004
- "False Documentation? Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service" ABC News – September 10, 2004
- "Anatomy of a Forgery" American Spectator – September 10, 2004
- "Rather Defends CBS Over Memos on Bush" Washington Post – September 11, 2004
- "Amid Skepticism, CBS Sticks to Bush Guard Story" Los Angeles Times – September 11, 2004
- "More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic" The Seattle Times – September 11, 2004
- "The X Files Of Lt. Bush: A flurry of contested memos and memories sheds more heat than light on his record" Time – September 13, 2004
- "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers" Washington Post – September 14, 2004
- Washington Post: A Pentagon memo next to one of CBS's Killian memo – September 14, 2004
- "Document Experts Say CBS Ignored Memo 'Red Flags'" Washington Post – Wednesday, September 15, 2004
- "Dan Rather interviews Marion Carr Knox - September 15, 2004" Youtube
- "Ex-Guard Typist Recalls Memos Criticizing Bush" Los Angeles Times – September 15, 2004
- Boston Globe apologizes for taking misquoting two experts about memos
- "Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says' NY Times – September 15, 2004
- "CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's" Washington Post – September 16, 2004
- "Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect" Washington Post – September 16, 2004
- "'Buckhead', who said CBS memos were forged, is a GOP-linked attorney" Seattle Times – September 17, 2004
- The Paper Trail: A Comparison of Documents by The Washington Post print edition.
- "In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries" Washington Post – September 19, 2004
- Graphic comparison of all the CBS memos with officially released Killian memos Washington Post – September 19, 2004
- "CBS Says It Can't Vouch for Bush Documents" – New York Times – September 20, 2004
- "Scoops and skepticism: How the story unfolded" – timeline from USA Today – September 21, 2004
- "Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers" Wired, October 7, 2004
- Blog-gate Columbia Journalism Review
- Transcript of online Q&A with Mary Mapes, November 11, 2005, by washingtonpost.com