You too can produce 60 Minutes-quality forgeries!

Yesterday, I went into something resembling a state of shock when, without any effort at all, I produced a document identical to the questioned August 18, 1973 Killian CYA Memo. That it is a forgery is beyond any reasonable doubt, and I don't think it's even worth debating. What's worth debating now is how a multimillion dollar show like 60 Minutes, which purports to be a sort of guardian of the public's right to know, would so cavalierly accept a forgery which doesn't even rise to the level of a serious attempt at a forgery.

It's important to point out that I am only one among many who have put Microsoft Word to the test. Via Bill Hobbs, I see that this reporter did the same thing first, and so did others:

  • Charles Johnson, who also superimposed the "original" forgery on top of his own forgery.
  • Power Line (which MT will not ping properly, and I'd love to know why....) cites Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, who produced an identical document with Microsoft Word, "which wasn't available when the documents were supposedly written in 1972 and 1973."
  • Hugh Hewitt posts his interview with Farrell Shiver of Shiver & Nelson, a document investigation lab in Woodstock, Georgia, who reflects pretty much the same thing.
  • Glenn Reynolds, despite illness, supplied a comprehensive round-up, and I was particularly taken with this flashing superimposition of the orginal forgery with the blogger's own version, as well as his speculations about who did it.
  • Also via Glenn Reynolds is another matchup from Feces Flinging Monkey, with whose assessment that "Somebody ought to go to jail for this" I thoroughly agree....
  • I'm sure by now it's endless. Anyone with Microsoft Word can produce an identical document. As I explained, I am no document examiner, but I knew and used the IBM Selectric in the early 1970s, and there is no way it could have produced the Killian letter.

    As I said, it's just too obvious, and I'm still worried that it might have been meant to be obvious.

    Who meant it remains the unanswered question.

    UPDATE: Amazing as it sounds, a number of bloggers are claiming the documents might be authentic because proportional spacing was available on electric typewriters. (More here and here.) Actually, my Selectric did a pretty good job with proportional spacing, but the point I was making is that it could never have generated anything like the above document. Plus, there was no way to generate a superscripted "th" (at least, not in mine). I suppose one could remove the carriage ball and (assuming one was available) insert another ball with smaller fonts for the sole purpose of inserting a miniaturized "th"....

    But would anyone in his right mind have done that when writing a memo to himself? Furthermore, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that Word with Times New Roman 12 produces a document identical in fonts and spacing to the alleged forgery. I think this puts the onus on the people who claiming the document could have been done with 1973 technology to simply create one. Surely there are museums of technology which could assist. I don't think they can come up with anything approaching what anyone can create with Microsoft Word -- and what was obviously created the same way.

    MORE: Chagrined! Justin Case sent me to Brian Tiemann's Peeve Farm, which links to an apparently authentic military document proving not only that Kerry was in Cambodia, but that 1960s technology was far superior to anything previously imagined.

    posted by Eric on 09.10.04 at 09:21 AM





    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1433








    March 2007
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30 31

    ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
    WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


    Search the Site


    E-mail




    Classics To Go

    Classical Values PDA Link



    Archives




    Recent Entries



    Links



    Site Credits