You mean people are still trying to prove the forgeries are real?

Fact Checking the Boston Globe – in Advance

Look. I was on vacation for two weeks and without an internet connection or motivation to even read a newspaper for most of that time.

Paul at Wizbang has a really bizarre post about the Boston Globe preparing to run a story about a guy who could replicate the Bush memos using computer versions of the fonts available on typewriters in 1973. Except for having to paste in the superscripted ‘th’, he pretty much had it, too.

Note that the match is exact.
Using the hypothesis established from examining the Bush memos, it becomes possible to create a virtually flawless replica.

Well, as long as you copy and paste the superscripted ‘th’, it is. I think.

Again, if these are authentic documents, all anyone has to do is dump a few dozen piles of other documents from that office from that time period into our laps so we can see all of the same characteristics present in them as well.

Open and closed.

Proving that a document is legit by reproducing it on a computer isn’t convincing me. I don’t care if it was a poorly-worded explanation of what he was doing or not.

These people think they can treat us like we’re idiots. “These people” includes Dan Rather.

I’m having trouble getting back into the swing of things, but I really thought this would have been settled by now. Since piles of matching documents haven’t been discovered, MO considers the case closed.

UPDATE: I totally forgot that I sent a letter to the editor of my local newspaper, the Grand Rapids Press, about this issue before I left for vacation. The procedure is for the paper to call and verify that you actually wrote the letter before they run it, and we left a couple days after I emailed it in and figured that even if they did call, I wouldn’t be able to respond as I was out of town. But there wasn’t even a message on my answering machine. Maybe they didn’t like what I wrote about the “mainstream media”. For archival purposes, I’m posting the text of my letter in the extended section.

UPDATE 2: Paul at All Agitprop writes

You know, one would tend to think that it’s pretty sad when you’ve reached a level of desperation from which you would be stupid enough to attempt to prove that a forgery is not a forgery by forging something.

The Democratic Party and its little minions have sunk to a shocking new low.

I’m not exactly sure how inclusive the term ‘minion’ is in this case, but he’s right that this is low. Amazingly, mind-numbingly low. Like when that Darren Brown guy used his mental powersTM to avoid shooting himself on live TV. And then used blanks just to make sure. And got caught.

As I said then about that idiocy, If you’re going to do something stupid, do it stupidly.

And I note that Paul at All Agitprop also covered that fiasco. What is it with that guy and coverage of sheer public idiocy?

The Bush Memos on CBS News

I believe we should be demanding a public side-by-side comparison of these new Bush memos with other documents from that office from that time. It should be very clear whether the formatting and styles match or not. Then we’ll all know.

I suspect that CBS News has already looked into that possibility, if not before the 60 Minutes story, at least since the forgery question made the news. The fact that Dan Rather didn’t have reams of matching documents to shove in our faces tells me that they don’t match. Instead, he shows us two superscripted ‘th’s that clearly are different and tells us they’re the same. We should all be comparing stacks of documents, not the two little elements that Dan Rather decides he’ll let us see.

I don’t think Rather and CBS News like being fact-checked by a bunch of internet amateurs. I don’t blame them, but they had better get used to it. The media world is far different than it was when Rather took over for Walter Cronkite. And the changes are probably only beginning. Why doesn’t CBS have swarms of internet geeks checking into this stuff for them? CBS News allegedly had those documents for six weeks before they made them public. It took the internet only twelve hours to raise very serious doubts about their authenticity. Swarms of networked fact-checkers and living room sleuths are outworking one of the most powerful news organizations on the planet.

These documents might be totally legitimate. But to prove so would be fairly simple and straightforward. CBS News hasn’t done it.

Murdoc Jern


  1. Dude I had a mean sub today and she blamed me for not doing any work and I did do all of the work. That mean old granny!