Make sure you check the Drudge Report as well.

It turns out Ben Barnes is a top campaign contributor to the Kerry Campaign, than he proceeds to come out and says he non-partisan, you can find his name as a top contributor right on Kerry's website, so it makes some of the stuff look mighty fishy like the First ad of the Swift Vets

Interesting, I wonder how things will pan out?

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software, which wasn’t available when the documents were supposedly written in 1972 and 1973.

Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised “th” in “111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron” — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

“I’m virtually certain these were computer-generated,” Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer’s Microsoft Word software.

The above is from today's MSNBC.com article on this same subject.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Oh My! You mean Kerry has liars supporting him?
I thought it was only the Right wing.
Crap that is something no intel person would fall for. the typewriters the military used back then were hardly likely to do superscript.
Let alone the average clerk being likely to go to the effort.
I call BS!

Updated 5:37 PM, EST
INDC Journal actually brought in a forensic document expert (hey, why didn't I think of that? brain to blogic: because you're a slacker, get back to writing!) to examine the National Guard documents in question. He's 90% sure they're fake.

Updated 10:40 AM EST
There's no new hard information, and barely any new gossip. The conservative American Spectator claims that some people at ABC think the Kerry campaign gave the suspect National Guard records to CBS. I think the Press is wary on this because the White House has still not questioned the authenticity of the documents.

Updated 1:37 PM EST
Liberal blogger Daily Kos argues that the records cannot be Microsoft Word documents, diving into Word minutia that is way beyond me.

I will update this story as more information become available. I invite readers to link or repeat any information they've seen.

Updated 1:37 PM EST Liberal blogger Daily Kos argues that the records cannot be Microsoft Word documents, diving into Word minutia that is way beyond me.

That is very interesting. I wonder if there is a PDF of original somewhere?

Updated 5:00 PM EST

FactCheck has a good roundup of media/expert opinions on the authenticity of the National Guard records.

In the end, the real issue isn't what Bush did or didn't do. Kerry has been caught misrepresenting his service already, and we were told that it wasn't pertinent, and that we need to focus on the "real issues". Now the DNC itself has issued an action alert mirroring the accusations of the smear 527, "Texans for Truth".

This is so utterly, insanely hypocritical that I am speechless. Bush had connections to people who had loose connections to Swift Boat Vets, and it was some great sin. Now people associated with Kerry start a 527, funded by MoveOn, and whose propaganda is relayed by official DNC memos... and it is supposedly okay. I don't get it.

Aren't there other documents of the same time to which to compare that one? How common was superscript in such documents in that day? I'm 100% positive that they're fake though and that Daily Kos and company are simply apologists.

There seem to be a number of forensic document experts who, on initial review of non-original documents, are skeptical of the source documents' authenticity. Far as I know, CBS has not named their vetting experts and none have come forward. Original documents have not been made available, either. Daily Kos has made the case that the typography of the copies published "could" have been produced with typewriters in 1973, based on claims by third parties that it was possible, but that doesn't prove they are genuine, as even they admit. Maybe someone from IBM will make some official clarification of what their machines could or couldn't do then. Given that the machines which are claimed to have been capable of such typography were considered "very" expensive at the time, the likelihood of TANG having one would seem remote. I routinely used an IBM Selectric up through 1971 and it didn't have the ability to do superscripts. When I was in the Navy from 1978 through 1980, IBM Selectrics were common, but in looking through my Navy records (still have them, don't ask me why) I could find no superscripts anywhere, even where nomials were used.

I'm willing to let this play out further, but my money is still on them being bogus.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I still have copies of my service record from 79-83 and NOPE! None there. And there are a lot of mistakes inmiy stuff.
Perfect margins etc. haha. Fake.

Updated 10:47 PM EST
CBS News has finally named an outside "document and handwriting examiner" who says he believes the documents are real: Marcel Matley. He also warns against coming to conclusions based on photocopies, fascmiles, mimeographs, or camera obscura images. Of course, if CBS would just make the records more available to outside experts, they could end this confusion quickly.

As I've said in another related thread, that's the saddest job of (not) backing up a story I've ever seen. Absolutely pathetic, without a single shred of proof of authenticity of any of the documents they claim to be genuine. Whoever wrote that should be shown the same door they show Rather, as in the one they shouldn't let hit them in the ass on their way out.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Updated 8:45 AM EST
A friend of mine pointed out the excellent Killian document coverage by the blog The Shape of Days. It has lots of photos of Killian signatures, although with a great comparison of typewriter text and the actual document... I promise, this isn't just the same analysis you've seen everywhere else... well, unless you have.

Of course, if CBS would just make the records more available to outside experts, they could end this confusion quickly.

There appears to be noone @ CBS with the nads to do that. Looks like they're going to hunker down & hide behind the "we can't divulge confidential sources" BS. This isn't just a political game - there could be grounds here for a criminal investigation.

Cheers,
Daiwa