In the absence of more compelling evidence, I would suggest the right-leaning bloggers lay off this forged documents business. Since we now have a witness to 'W' being in Bama, what is the point? Please stop. You're making us look like a bunch of barking-moonbats. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they usually turn out to be false. Usually. Since they are usually false it seems safe to me to put the burden of proof on those trying to prove the conspiracy.

UPDATE: Eating crow? I might be, soon. Bill at INDC and then the mainstream press (via Curbside Prophet) on the case. But, I would still warn readers of the possible methodology problem here. The first rule of hypothesis testing is to accept the status quo until the level of proof is very high. In social science statistice, we generally put that standard of proof at around 95% probability before we can accept the hypothesis (actually, until we can reject the null hypothesis). While we are not talking about quantifiable data here, the fact that there are alternative explanations still does not give me reason to accept the hypothesis that the documents are forged. Update within an update: Bill at INDC now says his expert is 90% certain. That is getting pretty close to the threshold of 'proof'.

The real story here, though, may be that the blogosphere has forced the mainstream press into investigating the allegation. And, as the left has always maintained, it is the seriousness of the allegation, not the facts, that are important. (/sarcasm)

PS-Please follow Updates at Allah's and at NRO. There is plenty of evidence that this could have been produced in 1972. Again, since there are reasonable explanations other than a forged-document conspiracy it is safe to put the burden of proof on those who cry foul. This is a basic methodological assumption. Deity, may I humbly beg you to stop this.
Captain Ed, this is not the only reasonable explanation since the White House also produced a duplicate.
You can't prove a negative.
Ever hear of Occam's razor?
Certainly a physicist knows Occam's razor? No?
Dude, why assume a conspiracy when other explanations will do?
Again, it seems that reasonable explanations are breaking out all over the place.
Dude, not you too?
Come on man.
Jen, i tu?
Eddie?
The Posse aint on Broadway on this one.
Earth to Matt, you are our glorious leader. Lead.
This is a small dead conspiracy, I'd say.
The first duty of a patriot is to question authority, even when we are predisposed to believe that authority.
My Blog children are even spreading this.
Shahids ought not say such things.
Likely?
Ok, nice work, but it is still not enough to make a hard case in light of other explanations.
Come on bro, evidence does not equal proof.
Sugar, may I call you sugar? let's not drop this stuff in an otherwise sane post
Jimmy, dude, let's not go spreading this around.
Odd? Maybe, but that does not mean unreasonable.
Obvious?

Much more even-handed.
Thank you for your sanity.
Skepticism always is the best course, good call.
My thoughts exactly, Dale.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:21 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 6 kb.

1 LGF has the slam dunk, typed it up in word all the default settings, perfect match. I'm skeptical too, but that looks like a slam dunk piece of evidence to me. The burden is now on CBS to come up with a device from 72 that could type that out.

Posted by: James at September 09, 2004 12:43 PM (rP4OC)

2 I was about to add the LGF link too: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged I agree with you about conspiracy theories in general. I think this time there really is a wolf.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at September 09, 2004 12:56 PM (ktl9o)

3 Of course the incredible stupidity on display if these documents are forgeries could lead a really conspiracy minded person to wonder if they made forgeries so they could produce the real documents later in a rope-a-dope maneuver. But as my father says never ascribe to cunning what can be more readily explained by stupidity.

Posted by: James at September 09, 2004 12:57 PM (rP4OC)

4 Excuse me? "In the absence of more compelling evidence?" What more compelling evidence do you want? These memos appear to have been produced with technology that did not exist in 1972 and that was far from practical in 1984. And they can't be genuine if they were produced after 1984 because the lieutenant colonel whose signature is on them died that year. This isn't conspiracy-theory stuff. This is, "Hey, that ain't right." Even the IBM Selectric Composer, the most sophisticated desktop typesetting machine available in 1972, couldn't have produced the memos in question. It's that reduced-size subscript that kills it.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at September 09, 2004 01:02 PM (UAuME)

5 Big mistake on your part pointing to the White House release of these documetns. They only released the VERY documents that CBS faxed to them. To me, the major issue which proves forgery here is the kerning. That's the representative size of letters in a font. Only Microsoft's Times New Roman has such a radical kerning difference between the lowercase "l" and "m" -- the original typsetting machines back in the day did not. I'm afraid the left has been MAJOR busted on this story. They faked it. And they're caught.

Posted by: Gonzo at September 09, 2004 01:16 PM (C0McP)

6 I'm baffled by your strong opposition to this story, Russ. You're right about conspiracy theories usually being wrong, but it's not like people are arguing here that aliens control Kerry's brain. There's some real, honest-to-goodness evidence that the documents might be forged. And as you point out in your post, I've provided links to material that cuts the other way. What's wrong with exploring the issue? If it doesn't pan out, it doesn't pan out. Let the goddamned left have a taste of its own medicine for once.

Posted by: Allah at September 09, 2004 01:23 PM (EeR5C)

7 Rusty, I agree with Allah. Nobody (at least not any of the bloggers I respect anyway) has completely swollowed this story yet. But there are some serious questions about those memos. CBS either doesn't know or isn't saying where they came from and there appears to be some serious discrepancies having to do with font size, etc. Why not explore the issue? Nobody is saying its true yet, but I think there are some legitimate questions that should be asked and answered before CBS and other media outlets go off making headlines with these memos.

Posted by: Rob at September 09, 2004 01:28 PM (fcqpB)

8 But it makes us look as bad as them. They do this shit all the time. Since there is some doubt that something is true, then our worst fears about the other side are correct. I think you're doing a reasonable job of showing that there is some contrary evidence, but have you seen the massive blogosphere reaction? It's spreading like wildfire that there is a CBS conspiracy to forge documents or that this dude forged the documents. Yeah, there may be motive, but as Michelle pointed out to you there are other explanations. These other explanations seem far more reasonable. Plus, I think you underestimate the power of the blogosphere. This is going to get out, fast. And if it turns out these are not forged documents, which I presume will be the case, it's going to look real bad. Sure, you and I know that 90% of the lunacy comes from the left, but the mainstream media doesn't and this will be seen as "proof" that the Bushies are way out there. Mark my words.

Posted by: RS at September 09, 2004 01:32 PM (JQjhA)

9 Sweetums, just asking the question, not making an assertion. As you may know, I'm certainly capable of correcting mistakes or falsehoods. However, I may simply monitor the situation until the facts come out fully, one way or the other. *May* bieng the operative word here.

Posted by: Juliette at September 09, 2004 01:41 PM (1+d4t)

10 I never assumed some conspiracy. I just assumed it was the MSM falling for specious data. The reason I was excited was the fact that I had already seen lefties using the Killian memo to further the "AWOL" meme, and this info refuted that. So what's the latest on the validity of the forgery claims? What about the "th" issue?

Posted by: Brian B at September 09, 2004 01:42 PM (OnnW3)

11 Allah posted this from Forensic Document Examiner that INDC talked to http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php The guy doesn't seem to key on the superscript which is what I thought was hinky (IÂ’m no expert anyway), he says the kerning (proportional spacing) narrows the field, but that the number 4 seems to show that the document is a modern creation. Not exactly ringing, but the guy is a professional witness so he would be guarded about his analysis until he saw the document in the flesh... I donÂ’t want to be a moonbat but IÂ’ve had the feeling for the last year unless blogs are dealing with a story unfavorable to dems it doesnÂ’t get done. At some point a rumor on the blogsphere will be passed around and blown out of proportion, I donÂ’t think this is that point. But IÂ’ve been wrong in the past.

Posted by: James at September 09, 2004 02:08 PM (rP4OC)

12 Gonna wait until they admit it?

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at September 09, 2004 02:20 PM (7XPVo)

13 Hey, Occam's Razor boy here. Sorry if I got on your bad side, man. I'm just trying to provide my own analysis of the documents. I'm not crying conspiracy, not trying to posit some sort of evil cabal behind CBS or Sixty Minutes. I'm just presenting my reaction to the facts at hand, and linking to better sources of information than I. And my reaction, looking at those memos, is that they're fake. That's why I'm asking for any evidence otherwise. I'm not trying to be combative, and I'm not assuming there is no counter-evidence; I honestly want to know whether the elevated 'th' was possible (or perhaps I should say plausible) for an internal memo, and I honestly want to know whether these were released by the White Hoouse, or whether they were obtained by CBS elsewhere. I don't like moonbats; I'm trying my best not to be one here. Maybe they're not forgeries, but the initial visual evidence gives me, at least, reason to doubt. I'm looking for more information. And if these in fact are forgeries, who knows who's to blame? Maybe CBS put it together itself, although I very much doubt that. Maybe the Kerry campaign is the source for it, although I again very much doubt that. Others claim it was Bush or Rove, and again -- yeah, right.

Posted by: Josh at September 09, 2004 02:21 PM (iGAEH)

14 "Blog children"? Damn, you ask for one favor and the next thing you know, you're adopted. Double my allowance.

Posted by: Dylan at September 09, 2004 03:03 PM (ueh4n)

15 Its a damn conspiracy, I tell ya! This is getting curiouser and curiouser. First it is implied that Bush leaked the forged documents. Then it turns out that his are copies of the forged documents faxed to him by CBS. Time to put on the tinfoil hat and roll out a whacky conspiracy theory: Did someone plant the forged documents, alert CBS, leading to the subsequent Dan Blather 60 Minutes hit piece? Who would that someone be? Hmmm.....

Posted by: infidel cowboy at September 09, 2004 03:33 PM (1Brws)

16 Ironically enough, infidel cowboy ain't that far from right. The left is already claiming that this is a Rove plant to discredit CBS to begin with. Who're the mooonbats?

Posted by: Brian B at September 09, 2004 03:46 PM (OnnW3)

17 Rusty, When I make an accusation against someone I think it is incumbent on me to provide proof of my allegation. Why is it incumbent on us to prove the documents unreal? We arent making accusations against anyone, why isnt it CBS's job to prove the documents are real since the point of them is to further their overall goal of getting John Kerry elected? I say until they produce the originals or disclose how they got them and from who, I am going to consider them fake. Hey produce the documents give them to a non-partisan third party with the expertise to verify them and have at it. If they are real great if not fine but at least we know the truth. I am way beyond giving the benefit of the doubt to the MSM.

Posted by: Big E at September 09, 2004 04:57 PM (9GaaH)

18 Fox just teased the forged memo story at 6:09 est.

Posted by: James at September 09, 2004 05:08 PM (rl/jf)

19 Fox soft peddled it, they were very careful not to go too far. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. FYI on NPR this afternoon there were only two quick mentions of the Bush AWOL story. This morning it was non-stop.

Posted by: James at September 09, 2004 05:15 PM (rl/jf)

20 They are doing a second story with all the goods!

Posted by: James at September 09, 2004 05:25 PM (rl/jf)

21 Good news, Rusty - looks like the 95% standard has been met.

Posted by: infidjel cowboy at September 09, 2004 07:48 PM (AZB61)

22 Hat's off to you, Rusty - you finally managed to cram more links into a post than a typical DailySpam! has. I'm going to have to work much harder now.

Posted by: Ironbear at September 10, 2004 04:40 AM (/Q5By)

23 The left is already claiming that this is a Rove plant to discredit CBS to begin with. So the plot was to fool CBS with obviously fake documents? What kind of wizards at CBS then approved the use of these? Perhaps the network's advanced case of "Clobber-Bush Syndrome" (CBS) clouded their judgment and silenced their conscience. Nah--only deranged people would overlook something as simple as that.

Posted by: Big Dan at September 10, 2004 01:06 PM (roGJq)

24 The time has come for Kerry to be a man, confess his entire campaign is one big lie and that he had the docs forged in a last gasp to keep his collapsing campaign alive! He's toast!

Posted by: ALGORE at September 12, 2004 08:19 PM (B1HGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment