hipsterdufus said:
Senile old bitch? Here's her pic.
Look, I sense you despise CBS because Edward R. Murrow outed your hero Joe McCarthy.
As for Rather, CBS caved on this one. Viacom spends millions of dollars lobbying Washington,and they could not afford to have the adminstration or the FCC be their enemy. The story of the "forgery" of the CBS document spread faster than the news of the 12 miners being alive in Sago. No one has
EVER proved that the document CBS used was a forgery.
EVER.
After spending millions of dollars and months of investigation time, not even Dick Thornburg's investigation proved the document to be a fake. There is a difference undocumented proof, and forgery. Either way, there is a serious problem with Bush's National Guard service, it's an old story.
Bush (Rove) has been at war with the media since day one - the first newsconference. The general effect is to get the corporate media afraid to dig up stories. The administration's strategy has been very effective in silencing the media. I think if they had there druthers, the neo-con men would have Scott McClellan report the news on every network but Fox.
Putting journalists in jail, and trying to control PBS are two other good examples. O'Reilly, on the other hand, or Brit Hume, or Neil Cavuto, or Chris Wallace make newz up on almost a daily basis, and no one at Fox is seems to care.
Here's a few more Franken Pictures from his 5th USO tour:
At Abu Graib:
More Abu Graib:
In Baghram
CBS didn't cave Rather took a bullshit story and ran with it right before the presidential election because he's a partisan hack, the letter is an obvious forgery and has been proven as such:
Detailed analysis of authentication issues
No generally recognized document experts have positively authenticated the memos. Several individuals with expertise in typewriters or computer typography regard the documents as forgeries based on typographical analysis. These include Peter Tytell, a document examiner and typewriter expert [84], Thomas Phinney, an Adobe computer font expert [85], and Joseph Newcomer, a computer typography pioneer and Windows typography expert [86]. This conclusion is based in part on analysis of the letterspacing, as follows:
The typography of the Killian documents can be 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.
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 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. But it is not a realistic possibility that Killian would have had these documents printed, so it must be concluded that they are modern forgeries.
[edit]
Typographical questions
[edit]
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 [87]. 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[88] from Gen. Ross Ayers of TexANG also exhibits proportional spacing, as does this letter[89] of resignation in protest from a TexANG secretary, as does John Kerry's 1967 Navy fitness report[90], as does this 1963 White House memorandum[91]. 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.[92] 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."[93] 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.[94] 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".[95] 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.[96] Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts at Adobe Systems responded to Glennon's statement 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. [97] 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) [98] 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 [99], 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.
