Jump to content

Killian documents authenticity issues

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 1 April 2006 (→Independent experts: clarify this section is about Hailey; previous experts numerously quoted above in article; removed unsourced POV like experts "almost certain"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Guardgif.gif
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.

Typography

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.

Proportional fonts

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 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 [1]. 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[2] from Gen. Ross Ayers of TexANG also exhibits proportional spacing, as does this letter[3] of resignation in protest from a TexANG secretary, as does John Kerry's 1967 Navy fitness report[4], as does this 1963 White House memorandum[5]. None of these proportional font examples is the same font as that used on the Killian documents.

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.[6] 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."[7] 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.[8] 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".[9] 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.

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.[10] 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. [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.

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) [12] 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 [13], but could not have produced the documents in question.)

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.

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.[14][15] 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."

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.[16]

Word wrapping

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.[17] 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.

Superscripted "th"

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 (1st, 2nd, 10th). 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.

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, (111th).[18] ). 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. [19][20] Three of the documents use multiple formats for ordinals within the same document.

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.[21][22] 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.[23]

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."[24]

Centered headers

Bloggers at ChronicallyBiased [25] 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.[26]

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.[27]

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".[28]

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 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[29]. 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 [30]. 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. [31][32] Daily Kos readers reported the existence of an inconsistent baseline in the original and divergent locations of the 'th' supercript [33].

In response, the creator of the screenshot converted the Word document to a PDF and obtained a much closer match to the superscript [34]. 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).[35]

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.[36] 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 [37]. 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[38] 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

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"[39]. This raises the question of the likelihood of a National Guard office having access to this type of equipment.

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. [40] 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.

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.[41]

Content and Formatting

In addition to typography, aspects of the memos such as the content and formatting have been challenged.

Signatures

Of the documents, only the May 4 memo bears a full signature. This signature was confirmed as authentic by Marcel Matley [42], an expert consulted by CBS. Matley examined only the signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves [43]. A different independent certified forensic document examiner said Killian did not sign the documents [44].

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 TANG unit.

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." She added that Killian had her type the memos and locked them away in his private files. She did not believe the CBS documents were real, due to inconsistencies, but said the content is accurate and was perhaps copied from the originals. Gary Killian, Killian's son, disputed her version of the history. [45]

Earl W. Lively, who at the time was the commanding officer at the Austin TANG facility was quoted in the Washington Times as saying, "They're forged as hell."

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 of 1972, although it is possible that Staudt could have continued to exert influence after his retirement.

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."[46]

Mention of Flight Inquiry

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.[47] 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.

Formatting

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[48] from Gen. Ayers regarding Bush demonstrates. Similarly, this 1973[49] 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.[50]
  • 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[51] 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.[52] 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.[53]
  • 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.[54] In official documents, the phrase is also at times written out in shorthand, such as "Ftr Intcp" rather than with an acronym.[55] 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.[56]
  • 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."[57] In a 1994 DOD document, "grp" is specified as a DOD abbreviation for "group".[58] The "grp" abbreviation is also often used in military practice.[59] Usage in the memos varies; "gp" is used at times.[60] 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.[61] as well as Heber's signature on Bush's suspension from flying status. [62]
  • 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[63] and this 1971 memo[64] from Gen. Ayers each include a right signature block.

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.[65] 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.[66] The U.S. military used the smaller size up until the early 1980s.

Dr. David Hailey

As discussed above, a number of experts in typewriters, computer typography and document examination have concluded that the Killian memos are not consistent with 1970's technology and are likely modern forgeries.

The most prominent defender of the documents' authenticity has been 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. He produced a report in late September, 2004, stating "evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter."[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]

Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a document expert who produced an extensive analysis asserting the memos were forgeries, called Hailey's study "deeply flawed" [4].

Hailey was the subject of an email campaign demanding his dismissal from the university after bloggers alleged that he fabricated portions of the study.[5] Hailey's critics also pointed out that he donated $250 to Kerry's campaign.

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.[6]

=== Primary source documents === (links to large PDF documents)

The four CBS News Killian documents:

The six USA Today Killian documents:

Peter Tytell's analysis from the Thornbourgh-Boccardi report, Appendix 4

News items


References

  1. ^ David Hailey. "Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 29, 2004 version)" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-08.
  2. ^ "Fact checking the Boston Globe–in advance". wizbangblog (blog). Retrieved 2006-03-08.
  3. ^ David Hailey. "Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 30, 2004 version)" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-08.
  4. ^ Joseph Newcomer. "The Hailey Connection". Retrieved 2006-04-01.
  5. ^ "Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers". Wired magazine. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  6. ^ David Hailey. "Index of /bush_memo_study". Retrieved 2005-12-21.

Notes

  1. ^ "http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf" (PDF). CBS News. Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ "creativepro.com - The Digital Dish: Making Headlines, Not Setting Them". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  3. ^ "Bush Guard Documents Forgeries". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  4. ^ "http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=324". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  5. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  6. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc9_1-3.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  7. ^ "http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jkerry/ftnsrpts.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  8. ^ "White House memorandum". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  9. ^ "'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake -- 09/09/2004". Cybercast News Service. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  10. ^ "'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake -- 09/09/2004 (See above)". Cybercast News Service. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  11. ^ "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush (washingtonpost.com)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  12. ^ "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  13. ^ "TIME.com". TIME. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  14. ^ "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  15. ^ "The Shape of Days". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  16. ^ "Daily Kos :: Comments TANG Typewriter Follies; Wingnuts Wrong". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  17. ^ "INDC Journal: EXACTLY". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  18. ^ "QandO: A compendium of the Evidence". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  19. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  20. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  21. ^ "http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf" (PDF). USA Today. Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
  22. ^ "http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  23. ^ "Further scrutiny lessens doubts on Bush memos / Some skeptics now say IBM typewriter could have been used (See above)". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  24. ^ "http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  25. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001196.pdf (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  26. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  27. ^ "Chronically Biased - Keeping Tabs On The Houston Chronicle". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  28. ^ "The Shape of Days (See above)". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  29. ^ "http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  30. ^ "ImageBASIC Display Print Job" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  31. ^ "http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  32. ^ "lgf: Word 5 vs. Word 2004". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  33. ^ "Daily Kos: State of the Nation (See above)". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  34. ^ "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/politics/campaign/14guard.html?pagewanted=2". The New York Times. Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
  35. ^ "Daily Kos: State of the Nation (See above)". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  36. ^ "lgf: Yet Another CBS Document Experiment". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  37. ^ "TUMNZ: Fau^Hxed Bush Memos". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  38. ^ http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6vxcr/ URL broken as of 2006-01-04 (no copy available in the Internet Archive).
  39. ^ "DJJ". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  40. ^ "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  41. ^ "Bush Records (See above)". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  42. ^ "http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/006148.php". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  43. ^ "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/11/politics/campaign/11guard.html". The New York Times. Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
  44. ^ "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com) (See above)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  45. ^ "Questions mount on Guard memos' authenticity - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - [[September 11]] [[2004]]". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  46. ^ "http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html?pagewanted=print&position=top". The New York Times. Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)
  47. ^ "ABC News "Speaking Out"". ABC News. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  48. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001141.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  49. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc1.pdf (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  50. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc8.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  51. ^ "http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/BushFlightRecords.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  52. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc2_1-5.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  53. ^ "http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=col+site%3Aaf..mil&btnG=Search". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  54. ^ "http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records/1972History187thTacReconGp.pdf (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  55. ^ "ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  56. ^ "ImageBASIC Display Print Job" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  57. ^ "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". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  58. ^ "Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers (washingtonpost.com)". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  59. ^ "ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, and DEFINITIONS". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  60. ^ "http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=grp+group+site%3Amil++&btnG=Search". Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  61. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001192.pdf (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  62. ^ "ImageBASIC Display Print Job" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  63. ^ "ImageBASIC Display Print Job (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  64. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc6.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  65. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/doc10.pdf (See above)" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  66. ^ "http://truthandduty.com/documents/CBS001193.pdf" (PDF). Retrieved 2005-12-21. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  67. ^ "AF&PA : The U.S. Standard Paper Size". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  68. ^ "Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 29, 2004 version)" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-08.
  69. ^ "Fact checking the Boston Globe–in advance". Retrieved 2006-03-08.
  70. ^ "Toward identifying the physical source of the Bush memos (Sept 30, 2004 version)" (PDF). Retrieved 2006-03-08.
  71. ^ "Index of /bush_memo_study". Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  72. ^ "Prof Pursued by Mob of Bloggers". Wired magazine. Retrieved 2005-12-21.
  73. ^ "The Hailey Connection". Retrieved 2005-12-21.

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killian_documents_authenticity_issues&oldid=46413991"