Click for Main Weblog

   
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Thu. 09/09/04 10:23:56 PM
   
   

What Did Dan Rather Know? And When Did He Know It?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCLXXII

CBS covers itself in shame.

By now, Faithful Reader, you have surely heard about the infamous memos.

I will briefly set forth some of the reasons I've come across for concluding that they are really, really bad, bad forgeries. None of this analysis is original to me. First, the documents (click each for a 100% image, which will open in a new window).

Memo 04 May 1972

Memo 19 May 1972

Memo 01 August 1972

Memo 18 August 1973

So, how do we know — and I do mean know, with certainty — that these documents are forgeries?

  1. Several of the documents contain superscripted ordinals. That is, for instance, 187th instead of 187th. In 2004, software does that. To have done such a thing in 1972 and '73 would have required the typist to either have (1) switched from one ball to another (if using something like an IBM Selectric) and/or (2) have put the paper in a different typewriter just to type the superscripted ordinal.
  2. At least one of the documents has curly apostrophes (single quotes). You know, instead of '. In 2004, software does that. To have done such a thing in 1972-3 would have had requirements similar to the previous item, assuming it could have been done at all.
  3. At least one of the documents is kerned. That is, the spacing of the letters is tweaked so that sometimes they overlap. In the 18 August 1973 document, kerning can be easily seen in the word "my" in the third line of the body and in the word "not" in the fourth line: the top of "y" overlaps "m"; the top of "t" overlaps "o". In 2004, software does that. In 1972-3, typesetting could have done it. But it has not ever been possible to do this with a typewriter.
  4. Add 1 + 2 + 3 and you don't get 4. You get 0. You get zero possibility that documents created in 1972-3 could have had all three of these characteristics. (I'm not considering each document separately, because it is rather obvious that their overwhelming similarities indicate a common, fraudulent, source.)

I will merely note in passing that it occurs to me that the documents have been doctored to make them look as if they have been photocopied many times — perhaps by actually photocopying them many times — without any apparent reason for having to be photocopied many times other than to make them look old.

FWIW, here is my personal experience. First, when I bought my first personal computer, in 1989, I bought with it an Epson dot-matrix printer. So new was the concept of superscripting and/or subscripting text, I specifically asked the salesman if the printer was capable of it. He said sure, but it's software that does that. And I said yes, I know that. Second, some of the documents have ordinals that are not superscripted; they are usually separated from the numerals by a space. That's how you get software to skip performing the automatic conversion to superscripting. Third, I have occasion at work to want to use a regular apostrophe (') sometimes instead of a curly apostrophe (’). You either have to set the software so it will not convert the regular to the curly, and then have to do something special to get the curly; or, you have to let the software convert from regular to curly and do something special to get the regular. Fourth, I am even (believe it or not) familiar with kerning. Having been a geek for a long time, I used to spend hours and hours with WordPerfect 5.1 and its 1,020 page manual, which I purchased on Feb. 23, 1990. In fact, I have it before me right now: so geeky am I, I've kept it as a souvenir of my early PC days. (I also still have the six 5.25" floppy disks the WordPerfect software came on.) Kerning is discussed on page 331. :-)

Here are some of the more significant posts elsewhere, presenting all the evidence and analysis in more detail:

I think the person responsible for this incredibly botched forgery must possess several qualities: (1) remarkable deviousness, (2) breathtaking amorality, (3) an intellectual facility for generating possibilities rather than probabilities, and (4) a lack of solid experience with typewriters and word processors by which to verify the possibilities generated by his imagination.

Do these documents, therefore, demonstrate that James Carville can type?

Let's now get to the heart of the matter. The story here is not Bush's TANG service. The story is not these documents. The story is not even forged memos. The story is

ONE OF THE WORLD'S PREMIER NEWS ORGANIZATIONS
TRIED TO PASS OFF FORGED DOCUMENTS
— INEPT-BEYOND-BELIEF FORGED DOCUMENTS —
TO IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF THE PRESIDENT
IN AN ELECTION YEAR DURING A TIME OF WAR

Moreover, they used, and sullied,
the good name & good reputation
of a deceased military officer
to do it.

Many questions are raised by this scenario: Who, precisely, actually forged the documents? How did CBS get them? What expert(s) did CBS have examine the documents for authenticity? Elmer Fudd? Daffy Duck? And, did anybody at CBS have any clue that the documents are forgeries?

So, these are my most important questions:

WHAT DID DAN RATHER KNOW?
AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 09/09/04 10:23:56 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media.

   

The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved.