SilverNRed Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Nice side-by-side comparison of a fake memo next to a real one. Washington Post Yes, I can see how one would look at these two and have ZERO reason to think something funny might be going on. So either CBS is incredibly stupid or they really thought they could put one over on America here. The stonewalling makes both options pretty plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 Nice side-by-side comparison of a fake memo next to a real one. Washington Post Yes, I can see how one would look at these two and have ZERO reason to think something funny might be going on. So either CBS is incredibly stupid or they really thought they could put one over on America here. The stonewalling makes both options pretty plausible. 36314[/snapback] Of course, one of the documents is FROM Bush, and the other TO Bush. Ergo, they weren't created at the same source. Ergo, they can't really be compared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 19, 2004 Author Share Posted September 19, 2004 Of course, one of the documents is FROM Bush, and the other TO Bush. Ergo, they weren't created at the same source. Ergo, they can't really be compared. 36359[/snapback] I think there's enough of a difference that you'd wonder if they were from the same decade, let alone the same source. I doubt the other documents from the TANG in early 1970's differ significantly from the real one presented by the Post. Of course, even if they had the same font and formatting, you'd have to verify everything else about the documents before you present them as 'news'. It doesn't seem like they verified anything. Seems like they basically made every possible assumption necessary to conclude the memoes were for real. Or they just hoped no one would question 60 Minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 I think there's enough of a difference that you'd wonder if they were from the same decade, let alone the same source. I doubt the other documents from the TANG in early 1970's differ significantly from the real one presented by the Post. 36374[/snapback] Personally...I think so too, given the literally hundreds of documents (land records, mostly) I've looked through dated 1955 onward. Personally...what I think doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Any reasonably creative and intelligent person can easily explain away the differences by saying "Well, one was a personal note from Bush himself, the other an official note from a National Guard HQ. Of course they'll be different." Whatever one chooses to believe, it's still an ambiguous indicator. Now, if they got another memo from the HQ from the same time period (same day, even - you'd think they'd have managed that by now, wouldn't you?) that looked distinctly different...that would be some pretty hard evidence. Comparing two different documents from two different sources in two different YEARS isn't evidence, it's manipulation. Akin to demonstrating a glove doesn't fit without mentioning it shrunk from being soaked in blood... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athletic Supporter Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 I won't even get into the fact the superscript was readily available in the early 70's but what struck me about the two docs.....Killian's signature certainly doesn't look the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 I saw that comparison two days ago in Stars and Stripes, and to me, the signature stood out like a sore thumb... it was a markedly different signature. I'm no handwriting expert, but one looks like it's a forgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 I don't think the documents are legitimate at all. My own signature, however, is dramatically different on all kinds of documents. That is not really a good indicator for many, many people unless you get a serious analyst that can parse the indicators. A first look at two signatures doesn't tell you much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 19, 2004 Share Posted September 19, 2004 I don't think the documents are legitimate at all. My own signature, however, is dramatically different on all kinds of documents. That is not really a good indicator for many, many people unless you get a serious analyst that can parse the indicators. A first look at two signatures doesn't tell you much. 36531[/snapback] Actually, if you take a close look at it there's a few important differences that stand out immediately. The upper loop of the "J", for starters: in one (on the right), it's a more rounded loop with the right-side vertical line bowed out. In the other, the right-side vertical is almost straight, and the break into the left-hand pen stroke is sharper and not as rounded. Also, the "ian" at the end of his name: in the one, it's made of more vertical pen strokes with the "a" tending to be muddled and run into the "n". In the other, the vertical strokes aren't as sharp, and the "a" more pronounced both in shape (the central open area is far more noticable) and in definition, being more distinct from the "n". Both of those are traits that tend to be consistent across signings; i.e. the pen strokes should be consistent no matter how different the signatures look. In this case, the shape of the "J" and roundness and distinctiveness of the "a" are pretty inconsistent...and to double-check, I pulled a few other documents off the web signed by Killian in that time period. His signature is consistently shows those traits throughout, and matches the signature on the document on the left in this case, NOT on the presumed forgery. The other thing that jumped out at me was the "W" in "George W. Bush". Note the central peak is even with the outer arms in the presumed forgery, but not in the other. Interestingly, that feature does not appear in any other document I've checked (which isn't a comprehensive check, I know) from that unit for the peroid. It's as though the unit decided to use a typewriter with Times New Roman font specifically for that memo. Plus...in no other document I've seen does the 111 FIS refer to itself with the abbreviation "FIS", or without referring to the group as well. The only reason I wouldn't think it's not a forgery at this point is because it's such a bad one I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to try to pass it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 19, 2004 Author Share Posted September 19, 2004 The only reason I wouldn't think it's not a forgery at this point is because it's such a bad one I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to try to pass it off. 36609[/snapback] Maybe not LOL, but definitely very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts