Damn, I missed that when I looked at the PDF files - good catch.

Verrry Interesting!

ooo, CBS, you feel that baby? BURN!!!

burn baby burn! Dan-O Inferno!...

Wow! The implications of that are...my head is starting to hurt.

Didn't USA Today get the memos at the same time as CBS (D-NY) but have enough journalistic integrity not to urun unverified memos? If so, they would have a real coup on thier hands in answering the questions that Rather won't. They already know the source - so why isn't anyone pushing them?

Gentlemen/women...could you please clarify the significance of this ?

Im a little lost : >{

"6.66"

Sounds appropriate.

I have no doubt that the Kerry campaign is in this up to their necks. (I think) Someone typed up those memos after LTC Bill Burkett dogged Max Cleland into giving him a contact high up in the Kerry campaign.
(I think) Dan Blather spent this last weekend in Texas convincing LTC Burkett to fall on his sword and take the hit, out of loyalty to Kerry/hate of Bush, in order to keep the complicity of the Kerry campaign secret.
But it won't work.

I am in awe of some of you here.

Sort of echoing #7 Ted; I understand the significance of this, but not how adie could tell.

Is it something anyone can do, or does it require a special program? Inquiring minds definitely want to know this one!

# 7 t

The implication is somebody (Burkett? CBS?? Lockhart??? Cleland???) was making acrobats of these "memos" several months ago ...

10 I agree totally, this is some james bond sh*t

Drudge:

BUSH OFFICIALS WANT CBSNEWS MODERATOR OFF DEBATE

Just hours after CBSNEWS admitted it cannot prove the authenticity of documents used in a 60 MINUTES story about President Bush's National Guard service, top Bush advisers are recommending a CBS reporter be removed as moderator of a planned presidential debate, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

At question is the approved Oct. 13 debate at Arizona State University in Tempe with Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent for CBSNEWS, moderating.

"Considering the circumstances, we should definitely ask that Schieffer be replaced," a top Bush adviser told the president on Monday, according to a well-placed source.

The well-placed source continued: "Who can trust these CBS people to play it straight [during the debate]? I suspect they will be out for revenge."

The president is said to have not made any decision whether to seek a removal of the planned CBSNEWS moderator.

Developing...

There is a lizard somewhere who knows whatever needs knowin'...

OT

A moonbat friend said she'd seen this movie she hated: "it was so militaristic, the good guy was just ... good [ick!] and the whole thing was so white [barf], was, just such an expression of the fascistic Bush era [gag]!"

Sounds good, doesn't it? Bwahahaha!

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

am i missing something or doesn't a creation date only follow a computer if if is a DIRECT copy...hard drive to hard drive or disk to disk to have a valid creation date in the metat data?

correction #17
computer generated document

This could be bigger than Watergate...

Wait, the plot develops.

I download all the memos from the CBS site a week ago and looked at the source code. I just rechecked them and here is the creation date/times.

BushGuardAugust1:CreateDate>2004-09-08T21:07:04 -04:00
BushGuardAugust18: CreateDate>2004-09-08T21:07:48-04:00
BushGuardMay4: CreationDate>2004-09-08T21:08:23-04:00
BushGuardMay19: CreateDate>2004-09-08T21:08:07-04:00

Adie, where did you get the files you looked at?

I whole heartedly agree with #10 (Drudge), that any moderator should NOT be from CBS, given what CBS has just admitted to conspiring to do. Additionally, I would also suggest that Kerry must sign form 180 releasing ALL of his military records prior to the debate, or no debate will occur.

#20 - [Engineer]

Same here. Those of you with copies of the PDFs, look under File-Document Properties. Mine show 9/8 creation dates.

OT

Conerning the debates:

Bush should send in a memo in his stead.

#11 Barbara Skolaut

Just use Notepad to open the pdf file. The metadata is near the end of the file.

One of the PDFs posted on CBS' website has a file creation date of 2/6/04?

Which one?

Adobe Illustrator is definateley for sophisticated graphics users only.

I wonder if Illustrator has subvisible anti-counterfeit technology which Photoshop 7.0 does, IIRC. Might be interesting to know whether there is some serial number information that might be extracted from the images. Any Adobe engineers here?

#25 American Infidel

One of the memo files I checked had an internal Acrobat file creation date of 2/6/04.

Where did you get that file?

Need to explain this a little more to those of us with only 1972 computers. The crank on mine just fell off.

I didn't understand the Adobe reference. I thought Adobe had something to do with hacienda.

This entire document thing stinks to high heaven. This story apparently goes very deep into computer territory, not just some guy fiddling around with Word and hitting Print. Call out all the experts, we need their assistance again.

All you have to do to see the meta data is open the PDF file in a text editor like notepad or (my favorite) Edit Plus.

I don't think the meta data tells us too much. I looked at it when I first downloaded the original documents from the CBS Web site.

Here is the meta data:

<
?xpacket begin='' id='W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d' bytes='928'?>
<
rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf='[Link: www.w3.org...]
xmlns:iX='[Link: ns.adobe.com...]
<rdf:Description about=''
xmlns='[Link: ns.adobe.com...]
xmlns:pdf='[Link: ns.adobe.com...]
<pdf:ModDate>2004-09-08T21:08:32-04:00</p df:ModDate>
<pdf:CreationDate>2004-09-08T21:08:23-04:00& lt;/pdf:CreationDate>
<pdf:Creator>Acrobat 5.0 Image Conversion Plug-in for Windows</pdf:Creator>
<pdf:Producer>Acrobat 5.0 Image Conversion Plug-in for Windows</pdf:Producer>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description about=''
xmlns='[Link: ns.adobe.com...]
xmlns:xap='[Link: ns.adobe.com...]
<xap:ModifyDate>2004-09-08T21:08:32-04:00< ;/xap:ModifyDate>
<xap:CreateDate>2004-09-08T21:08:23-04:00< ;/xap:CreateDate>
<xap:MetadataDate>2004-09-08T21:08:32-04:00& lt;/xap:MetadataDate>
</rdf:Description>
<
/rdf:RDF>
<
?xpacket end='r'?>
endstream

It basically says that the document was scanned on a Windows PC on September 8. I'm interested in the documents adie is referring to, because my metadata is different. At some point, did CBS change the documents on their Web site? Adie, if you see this, can you share with me your docs?

Which of the CBS pdf's has a creation date of 2/6/04 ? The ones I downloaded have creation dates of 9/8/04 in the Document Properties window of Adobe Reader 6.0 .

And, whatever date is on the originals, I still believe that Mr. Burkett is both the supplier of the documents, and the typist. The man has a history of mental problems. He has a powerful anger fixation on Bush. One should not place one's trust in the hands of a person with his history. Means, motive, opportunity...

It is also likely he is a technology novice. He apparently didn't even own a FAX machine, going to Kinko's to do the dirty deed if the docs were indeed FAX'ed.

Maybe the computer and printer he bought came from one of these stores:

Kinko's Copies, 4133 South Danville Drive, Abilene, TX 79605 (325) 698-3300

CompUSA Abilene Store Store # 742, 4714 S. 14th Street Abilene, TX 79605 (325) 691-9188

OfficeMax, 3366 John Knox Dr, Abilene, TX 79606 (325) 695-6465

Office Depot, 4141 Buffalo Gap Rd, Abilene, TX 79605 (325) 695-1314

Staples - could not find a listing for one.

but if a document is scan and then faxed the creation date would be the date the RECIEVING fas machine or computer would assign as there is no way of transfering meta data from an original that is optically scanned and faxed...as wiould be the case from kinkos

#24 Engineer - thanks, but that doesn't really help. Where is Notepad?

I can use computers, but I can't make them sit up and bark. :-p

Those of you using 1972 IBM Selectric PCs, open the PDFs in Adobe Acrobat. Under the File menu, select Document properties. That's where the doc creation info is.

oops, eliminate Kinko's from the above list in #32. Although it should be checked if he rented time on one of theirs...and their hard disks should be checked for remnants of "erased" files...

It's the FOX PDF documents. I have it. The link is here:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_se rvice.pdf

#29 EddieP

I didn't understand the Adobe reference. I thought Adobe had something to do with hacienda.

Adobe is a software company. They make Adobe Acrobat which creates pdf files. They also make several high end graphics programs.

Some external (non-CBS entity) must investigate this.
Yes, the amazing individuals across this country who blog and post in blogs have done most if not all of the work, but there must be an official investigation from a legal authority to fianlly put a stop to CBS's forgery/lie and cover-up charade.

I take my hat off to the great-unwashed. King Dan must fall. He's a liar and a felon.

If Dan stays, then this is not America.

Which of the files are you talking about adie?

/CreationDate (D:20040206152448)
/Producer (HP ScanJet)
/Creator (HP PrecisionScan Pro)

#35 Barbara Skolaut

Under Accessories, but you should be able to see the same thing just by opening the file normally and then go FILE-DOCUMENT PROPERTIES-DOCUMENT METADATA

All - there definitely are different versions of the docs floating around. The PDFs I downloaded from CBS are "clean scans" of the original paper docs. Another set that I have (from USA Today, I think) show the CBS fax header on top of the page.

Dan's Adobe Ilustrated

:)

The SS John EFFING KERRY is sinking fast...

ahoy! Arggghhh matie we're taking on water on the bow and the port side...

You know what they...THE CAPTAIN GOES DOWN WITH THE SHIP!!!

Sorry Pirate Eye Kerry...you're going down with the MEMO.

.::blub::..::blub::..::blub::..::blub::..::blub::. .::blub::..::blub::..::blub::.

CBS and Co are frantically erasing evidence. Dan should be stopped, handcuffed, and escorted out of the building (along with Mapes and Howard). Why is Viacom, with plummeting stock value, allowing this to go on?

I also want little danny rather to personally apologize to PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.

Even though I think that the Kerry campaign is deep in this scandal (the coordination is quite obvious), and even though I think Burkett has been set up as a fall guy (because why would CBS want a buffer between the real source and 60 min.), I have a little difficulty with adie's observation. Why would the perp. of these forged memos be careful enough to paste a fake Kinko's address and fake rumple marks, but then be so sloppy with both the content of the memo and the various typographical errors? Do we have a sloppy and careful forger?

#35 Barbara

Go to Start>Run>type in "notepad" (no quotes) and voila! you'll get a blank page you can type or "ctrl-v" anything on. Then you can save it as a "dot txt" document. Anything, basically

Brilliant! The only thing I know about computers is that when it don't do right, throw in another scoop of coal and whack the framis valve with a ball peen hammer. adie sounds like a pro.

Wait a minute...

We may have two sets of metadata for the same scanned doc.

Two different .pdf s?

Cover up going on?

#46

Kerry's Hoity Reply:

"Hmmph!! The ONLY thing I go down on is Ketchup!"

B R E A K I N G N E W S!!
---

Joe Scarborough reporting laslt weekend Joe Lockhardt of the Kerry Campaign says Mary Mapes called him and said that "there was a guy who had some information and wanted to talk to him..."

It looks like Mary Mapes got the information from Burkett and then in order to do it at arms' length, called Lockhardt and told him to talk to Burkett.

Either this is the truth or part of the truth and CBS is setting Mary Mapes up to take the fall.

From The Associated Press:

Sep 20, 10:02 PM EDT

Kerry Aide Talked to Retired Guard Officer

NEW YORK (AP) -- At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said Monday he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released. The White House accused Kerry's campaign of fanning the controversy over Bush's military service.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

[Link: hosted.ap.org...]

Ok, some of us seem to be confused here. Is it that one of the 4 memos has an earlier date, while the others are from the 8th? Is the date that adie and charles are referring to, something other than what you get when you look right click your copy of the file and check out "properties" in windows, or is it something buried in the PDF itself?

If there is something in the PDF as well, will it match what windows tells you, or can they be different? Some programs (like word, for example) can leave bits of deleted things in the file, does Acrobat do that?

And perhaps most importantly, has anyone checked to see whether or not the PDF's CBS has out now, are the exact same ones they originally released? Why didn't anyone spot the fax header sooner? If I recall correctly, it took a few days before I saw anyone make note of it.

#43 Engineer - thanks again. Mine just shows "Properties." Maybe I need an updated version.

But I'll take y'all's word for it. It's not something I would have even thought about. My hat's off to all who outed this fraud and are continuing to investigate.

All-

Remember that date stamps added to files come from the system clock of the PC with which they were created. I could create a version of the memos that show a creation date of 1/1/1917 by changing the clock on my PC. Doesn't mean much other than someone at Fox is working on a messed-up machine.

What is the significance of Fox having documents with a different date than CBS? Why would this occur?

The files from Fox are different. First, they have all four documents in one file while CBS has four files. The CreateDate is different with the Fox ones being 6 months before the CBS ones. Very strange.

Same AP article---10:02 pm this date

Earlier, Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three- to four-minute call, and that he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.

Later, Lockhart said he was sure he had not talked to Burkett about the Guard documents.

Flip-flopping is contagious

BS "ARRANGED A MEETING" between Lockhart and Burkett?!?

At this point, CBS's credibility is shot to hell.
How can anyone believe a word they say?
The internal see-BS investigation is a joke and more than likely a snow job to lessen the blow to Dan Rather, the king of CBS. It's stall time at CBS. Ironically, it's CYA time at CBS. Stall time to dispose of proof and evidence that in fact the whole of Rather's news-gathering team were part and parcel of this little get-Bush-at-all-cost-project.

The page refreshed here and wiped my post clean before submitting [grumbles].

Anyway, let's remember that the date/time of the machine that created the PDF may have been set improperly. It is interesting that the appearant FAX date is Sep 10 while the PDF says Feb 6th. Either the machine upon which the PDF was created had the wrong date or the documents were created in Feb with intent to publish in Sept [not likely].

Anyone want to dissect the fonts of what appears to be the fax header?

#38 Max Darkside

Yes, the FOX .pdf (contains 4 Bush documents) does have a creation date of 2/6/2004 3:24 PM.

Interesting. The CBS docs are different - cleaner - and were created on 9/8/04 from ... what?

IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE there might be redaacted fax info in the top of the FOX documents. You can see bits and pieces of what looks like a FAX header- see document 1 and 2 on the FOX .pdf at [Link: www.foxnews.com...] 04_bush_service.pdf

Charles, thank you for the compliment! ~beaming~

Barbara, I first wrote about it this weekend. I don't think I could yet pull together the potential significance:

instructions for finding the Acrobat embedded date

What strikes me most now is: why does the fax say Sept when the Acrobat file says Feb? That's why I think we're still far from the truth of this event.

Kerry won't release his campaign phone records or emails. Then again, I don't know any important documents that pertain to Kerry that he will allow released

#58 Pax Americana

Doesn't mean much other than someone at Fox is working on a messed-up machine.

Just had the same thought since the Fox documents have a Sept 10 fax header.

Can you beleive that CBS and/or FOX is so clueless that they are faxing pdf documents around?

Wait a minute...

Why does the FOX .pdf have a creation date of 2/6/2004 BUT the first document in the series says "sept 10 04 03:08p" right at the top???

Something is fishy...

Downloaded the document from the Foxnews site (thanks, Max Darkside) and opened in Acrobat. Confirms it was created on

06.Feb.2004 15:24:48

As I look at this copy, there has clearly been something erased or covered up at the top, above the centered heading. Probably noted by a thousand sharp eyes before mine...but that would mean that the erased bits were prior to the document generation.

I just changed my system clock to Sept 20th, 2065, created a document and saved it. Upon reopening it, I checked the doc properties, and it shows a creation date of 2065.

Also, Fox's copies are so poor they are likely to be FAXs from somewhere else, after the story broke. [My guess]

66 scotsilv

web addresses with ellipses don't work in here. What's the whole address, pls?

I have used Macromedia freehand10 to create PDF docs. I don't know if that would leave prog info in the code or not. I didn't find tell tale MM fingerprints in my PDF files.

IMHO PDF suxs.

Are you looking at the series of 6 docs?

#17 dustyroadguy - the date I'm referring to is stored inside the Acrobat PDF file itself, not at the operating system level. That's why people forget that data is stored there. With some PDFs I can open them as text and read the data, with others I cannot. Sometimes Acrobat helper applications in the browser take over and convert certain PDFs. Other times, it doesn't do that. We'd need someone more savvy about Acrobat code to explain when and why. Not bottom tier tech support either. They probably won't have a clue about that.

OK, looks like somebody faxed the documents to Fox on Sept 10. Then Fox took those faxes and scaned them on a HP scanner and made the pdfs. The computer they used has the system date messed up. Nothing here except a bunch of idiots - they could of just emailed the pdfs. or if they were faxed, just made pdfs from the incoming faxes.

Maybe some of you did not read this, American offers his vote to Malaysiakini readers Right now Bush is trailing far behind Flipper (Kerry). Vote here, top left hand corner. Remember every vote for Bush counts.

Does Fox have a machine dedicated as a scanner-to-PDF RIP which has the wrong time set in its operating system?

Engineer - thanks on #1 post... I got the file I'm talking about from Fox News. See my link to earlier LGF post which provides a link to the file that contains all four memos. So how did that happen? It's definitely the CYA and other CBS memos.

Links to CBS memos in the PDF format can be found on this page.

As far as I can tell, all four PDF files were created on 9/8/2004.

Is there really an Illustrator 6.66?

We're to version 11 (CS) now, just to fill in the non-Illo users.
Version 6 is from loong ago. Was there a version 6.66?

#56 Tim in PA

We are toalking about embedded .pdf signatures, whihc include font/date/creation info etc., not Windows file creation dates that are local to your computer.

#83 adie

What story on FNC linked to this document?

IOW how did you find it?

"As everyone and his mother now knows, Burkett served in the Army National Guard. So how does Rather introduce him? As an officer in the Air National Guard. He's engaging in shitty reporting while he's apologizing for shitty reporting. "

Allah has spoken

#79 - American Infidel,

Nope, on a laptop - like lots of journalists are. My clock never synchs with my company's network.

Breaking News: USA today to report tomorrow - investigating the connection between Mapes and the Kerry campaign. Also, to report that Burkett told USA Today that he would only talk to the Kerry campaign.

10:18 PM EDT on MSNBC (Scarborough)

For everyone who missed it above, the document in question is HERE:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_se rvice.pdf

Fox versions created with Acrobat 3.x
CBS versions created with Acrobat 5.x

Doe Fox have some 'splainin to do to?

I didn't download the original good versions from USA Today, can somebody check the dates and versions on those? Especially the two extras?

The question is, who had the means, motive and opportunity to create these documents and the political pull to get CBS to plunge headlong into the abyss trying to get the scoop. Answer: simple really. Max Cleland.

Consider for a moment the trip Max took to Crawford, TX a few weeks back. He attempted to deliver a letter to W but was rebuffed. This places him in TX around the time that this story picked up steam within CBS newsroom. He admits, without specificity, that he has met with Burkett. Cleland is ex-military, with an working though dated knowledge of military verbiage and gramatical protocall. He has the gravitas and connections to pick up the phone and convince CBS that these documents are genuine. He's a decorated war hero that the GOP used dirty tricks (in his mind) to ruin and disgrace. They ruined his career and he has an axe to grind. Burkett has some old TANG documents with Killians signatures. He includes the DNC hotword :sugar coat" in one of the memos, as many Dems have used over the past 2 weeks on the circuit.

If he is DanGate's Deep Throat, then Lurch knows it and he has either already been told to discontinue campaigning for Kerry or shortly will be.

Someone call FoxNews IT support and get them to sync their PDF RIP with a network time server, stat!

adie, which document are you finding the Illustrator reference in?

I've opened the PDF files that I downloaded from Fox in Acrobat and is reads:
Creator: HP Precision Scan Pro
Producer: HP Scan Jet

And the only PDF that I was able to download from the CBS site ("BushGuardmay4.pdf") reads:
Creator: Acrobat 5.0 Image Conversion Plug-in for Windows
Producer: (same)

Just a thought here...

Remember last week, when someone was pointing out that the files C-BS had on their site now looked different than they did at first...faded, fussy and less bytes to them as well, I think.
So, when did Fox download the files...what about the ones that are on the C-BS site now???

If my memory serves me, February is an important time in the story of Burkett. On a post a couple of days ago, glwing, did you post it - there was an email or a post or story in February where Burkett states that the Bush TANG files "have been recreated" or similar language.

I have both the Fox and CBS PDF's.

Different dates and different versions of PDF. Fox 1.2, CBS 1.4.

If the faxed date on the copy is Sept. 10, 2004 (Fox version only) then there is no way the Adobe creation date could be 2/6/2004 and 9/8/2004 respectively.

#82 - Dar

I think you've got it. If Fox has an MFP with scan-to-PDF capability, nobody checks the system clocks on those things. Most IT departments treat them as walk-up copiers. System clock synch is under the radar (I work for a Xerox competitor, so I consider myself relatively knowledgeable on this subject.) It's highly possible that the clock on this MFP is screwed up and the distiller on the machine gave the PDFs an erroneous creation date.

#89 American Infidel

from my experience, if one is connected to a network (especially at ones place of employment) the clocks on puters are automatically updated

from my experience (Network admin/troubleshootter, Windows, Unix and Mac) there literaly dozens of ways for the clock to be wrong. It may have been set back on purpose to defeat nagware. It may not be connected to a network (stand alone graphics workstation) etc...

Fox documents

#89 American Infidel

My network at work, does not permit me to fiddle around with the dates on my computer system

Depends on how the network is setup.

From what I see, who says Fox even HAS a network? Really, if they are faxing pdf files and scaning paper faxes, they need some computer help real bad.

#100 Bernie

I may have posted it and I remember reading it, but gads, I can't remember where.

I may have saved it...let me look.

Fox News would be using a LAN, and their servers would be setting the date/time every time someone reboots. It's not a home PC where people set these. Also, why trust the fax headers any more than the faked signatures? I'm more likely to trust what Acrobat did automatically than what a human touched (the graphic memos).

I do see the creation date of Feb 6, 2004 in the PDF document properties. Several questions though:
1. Where did Fox get the document? From CBS? I would like to see the date on the same document from a second source as well as from Fox.
2. I assume that the creation date would come from the computer clock on which the document was created. Maybe the clock is wrong? Couldn't that account for such an early date?

Please everyone, don't stop the pressure:

[Link: www.fraterslibertas.com...]

#58 Pax Americana 

Remember that date stamps added to files come from the system clock of the PC with which they were created. I could create a version of the memos that show a creation date of 1/1/1917 by changing the clock on my PC. Doesn't mean much other than someone at Fox is working on a messed-up machine.

Or it could be that the folks at Fox are using pirated software. (Ahoy, there, matey! Avast! Arrrggghhh!) If you have a free trial of some software, or it is software which has an annual license that you need to renew, then one way to steal the software after the license has expired is to set your computer's clock back to a date before the expiration date.

cathy :-)

Y'all have officially lost me.

This redneck is going back the thread about having sex in New York.

Wait a moment-

Wouldn't Fox's machines be on a network?

Everytime you ping in to the network in my lab your machine gets a time update!

I doubt the computer clock error theory.

I haven't had a chance to read these comments yet and I'm heading to bed. So forgive me if this is redundant.

But they have NO security for document editing. In otherwords, they could have been created at a later date then the date could have been changed on the machine and resaved to throw people off.

This is an old trick at obfuscation. I'm not discounting it, but I have seen it done before.

Cheers and and good night.

USAToday files are dated 9/9/2004 modified 9/11/2004. PDF version 1.4.

#93
ax D.
Thanks, that's what I axed in #75 of #66 Scotsilv
Eye got a copy now.

Hm. It's interesting, but unfortunately this kind of information is highly "malleable". There is no way to prove or even establish as a likelihood that the seemingly-early date has any relevance at all, just because it depends on so many factors.

For example the date on the PC might have been wrong. This is the simplest and most likely explanation. Especially in an office, there is often a shared PC sitting somewhere for communal use for scanning, card reading, using some other peripheral, etc. As an IT professional I can attest to the fact that these computers are usually very out of date, as they are not "main" computers as used everyday by staff.

Also, far from a permanent "stamp" on the file, this kind of timestamp is just a plain text entry in a file. It is simplicity itself to change for whatever reason. You don't even need to open photoshop. You don't even need MS Word to fake that kind of thing!

But hey - why bother going down that road. It is 99% likely to be simply that the scanner PC's clock was set wrong.

hk

Kerry campaign now admits to dealing with Burkett and Mapes

USA Today story

WHO TYPED THE MEMOS FOR BURKETT?
He says he got them from a "source"!

cathy -

Certainly a possibility. I think the different file creation dates is a red herring. Either a PC/laptop system clock is screwed up, an MFP with scan-to-PDF has a screwed up clock or someone is cheating their demo version of Adobe.

Either way, it's my professional opinion that there's no there there with this issue, folks.

#113 Sean

Everytime you ping in to the network in my lab your machine gets a time update!

Only if the Time Service is running. I have seen networks where it is not used.

It may have been set back on purpose to defeat nagware.

Heh. Fess up, Fox! You're running the trial version of Adobe Acrobat Pro, and resetting the system clock so the "trial" never ends, aren't you? ;)

Unless that idiot Burkett used the scan/file/fax option of the Canon Imagerunner that some of the Kinko's in our area use. the scan and fax in *pdf format. Maybe the clock's off in this one.

Burkett August 25, 2004:

"I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath, taken when you were commissioned to "obey the orders of the officers appointed over you".

see article here

#113 Sean.

It takes me 4 mouse clicks to disable auto time updates in Windows. It's not hard.

It seems to be created completely differently from the CBS pdf.
The August 18 "CYA" doc:
CBS:
9/8/2004
Adobe Acrobat Image Conversion Plug-in for Windows

Fox:
2/6/2004
HP PrecisionScan Pro
(but why does it have a fax header in the image of Sep 10?)

It's possible that the scanner station had a messed up system date. That has happened to me once. But I'm not saying I don't get it.

Gee, reading the WAPO article I see Charles is my age. I really like LGF all the more more. He's not a kid. Don't know what gave me the idea he was.

I think this may be nothing more than a computer at Fox News with its clock set incorrectly. (Personal experience: At work, many computers have their clocks set incorrectly, and only a system administrator can set them.)
Those fax headers are probably from when they were faxed to Fox from CBS, or from the White House (which got them from CBS). So they got the fax, and then made PDFs on a computer with a very late clock.

I don't know, but maybe the National Enquirer would be more honest than the Tiffany network.

#95 -

I agree - i'm convinced he decided to go with it on the flight back from Texas...he was really upset down there -

Max is unquestionably going to be swallowed up by the vortex...

I wanna see Terry Mac get his too

#100 Bernie

So far...not there anymore if I bookmarked it and can only find this referring to Feb. but still hunting the web.

Burkett, 55, told the AP in a lengthy telephone interview in February that he now is a supporter of Democrats, although at the time he said he didn't necessarily back Kerry.

He said he overheard a conversation in 1997 between then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, and then-Adjutant Gen. Daniel James of the Texas Air National Guard in which the two men spoke of getting rid of any military records that would "embarrass the governor."

Wasn't it Feb of this year when he started this yet again?

#85 rosh - I just found where I got that in my head. It's the "Bush_Military_01.pdf" file that I believe I picked up at CBS. Its doc summary says:

Creator: Illustrator
Producer: Adobe PDF Library 6.66

Its creation date is 2/11/04.

Did these come from the government to CBS? I just started downloading everything.

I'm really sorry that I got confused about that point. There's so gosh darned many files out there.

American offers his vote to Malaysiakini readers which means all the Bush haters in Malaysia will vote for Kerry, right now Kerry is leading. Could you guys at LGF please upset the polls in this lefttist news online. Eric Ossemig, an ex-soldier with the US Army, feels so strongly about this that he is letting readers of malaysiakini determine who he should be voting for in the Nov 2 American presidential election.
Vote here top left hand corner for Bush, so that Bush get this guy's vote.

#113 not necessarily. Mostly those time synchronisation functions you're familiar with are run by "login scripts" tied to usernames. It is very possible, and in my experience common, for a general purpose "scanner PC" to not use staff logins - you might remember having to log on to a certain machine as scanner/scanner or similar - and thus they do not run the general set of login scripts.

It is a pain to maintain several sets of scripts, so unless you run the general one, you probably won't run one at all. Then again, it's strange to think that Fox's presumably good IT service would not notice a machine was so out of date? There is also the possibility that this is a branch office or a reporters' home computer...

Anyway, my point was that all these time sunchronisation functions that have been mentioned are optional, easily disabled, often simply not enabled, and it is a matter of professional opinion of the admin in charge to decide which. You certainly can't rely on that function to "guarantee" that any date set on a file is accurate - it's simply not the case.

hk

126 Scotsilv:

That's exactly the quote I was remembering...

If the date is accurate (and that is a big IF), the FOX would had to have been psychic in order to put the date September 10, 2004 on the top of the Image. The more likely expaination is that the date is wrong on the computer.

#122,

Either way, it's my professional opinion that there's no there there with this issue, folks.

I concur. The "backdate" does not rate.

An Emergency Grand Jury needs to be called NOW..Haul Mapes out of her rathole first into court,then Lockhart, Cleland to start getting indictments

#129 Walter Plinge

I like LGF better knowing that he is OLDER than me. I have discovered lately that I'm older than some of the lizards...was beginning to feel ancient :-)

Copy of USAToday files are here.

#113 Sean

Pings don't do time.. :-)

You can use Network Time Protocol (NTP) which you have to configure. On a windows network your time can be set using NTP or the NET TIME command, which has to be configured. In each case a human must set this up and set this up _correctly_.

And besides, we don't know if this machine was on a Network.

Renee, look at 126:

Its the whole recreated quote.

#130 Heh. A flock of lizards beat me to it.

#111 #124 #103 : Exactly what I was thinking. I had to do this with some shareware software that couldn't be registered.

#87 Partisan, The link is here:

Fox News link to 4 memo PDF

I found it because every day I skim about 15 news sites, including Fox. I saw that they had the PDF and I just saved it. Later, I wondered what date they'd made the PDFs and started looking at them all. This one really didn't make any sense, but then the forgeries don't either.

#140 - Dar ul Harb

The doc creation date is fake but accurate.

Found a cached page on Google of the USAToday Killian files...
[Link: 66.102.7.104...]

Notice date in URL is 2004-02-14.
Says it was "retrieved" on Sep 18, 2004, 4:52:14 GMT.

And been wondering about this connection for some days:
This cached page linked to the 2004-0214 USAToday Killian files...
[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

and, hhmm, it was also "retrieved" on the same day-- Sep. 18, 2004, at 1:10:12 GMT.

I'm having a hard time understanding how the Fox document could have been faxed on Sept. 10, yet scanned on Feb. 6. Wouldn't that imply that Fox had the documents well before CBS?

Canadians CTV @ 11PM - story on credibility of Rather and CBS

...been to busy to follow past few days but just noticed a commercial showing on CTV at 11pm tonight they will be speaking of this subject...should any Canadians be interested in watching it.

( saw this on Toronto TV moments ago )

#90 Pax - I do hear you, but it was not a "journalist" who made the PDF. It was a graphics artist, and they stay in the office on the LAN I bet.

#100

I found it!!!
*sag* so did 126 Scotsilv:
(Scot, coulda hollared and saved me some googles ;)

LOL...now I know why I didn't bookmark it...ramblings of a madman.

But says nothing about reassembling them in Feb.

#147,

LOL!

It's extremely precise, and completely wrong.

(Wish I'd thought of that.)

Charles, there's your headline:

Fox Memo PDF Timestamp: Fake, but Accurate

And who said that blogs don't have checks? Here was a good lead, but in the end, it turned out to be nothing.

Slate: Election Scorecard
Where the presidential race stands today.
Updated Monday, Sept. 20, 2004, at 7:36 AM PT

If the Election Were Held Today
Winner Loser

Bush: 344 Electoral Votes
211 solid, 133 close

Kerry: 194 Electoral Votes
150 solid, 44 close

:>)

94 damital
The USA Today one is one doc with all 6 memos in it.
Here's a new comparison:
CBS:
9/8/2004
Acrobat 5.0 Image Conversion Plug-in for Windows

Fox:
2/6/2004
HP PrecisionScan Pro

USAToday:
Created 9/9/2004
Modified 9/11/2004
Adobe Acrobat 6 Image Conversion Plug-in

I can speculate that USAToday has the most money and Fox the least :D

#151 - adie

I understand your deduction that if the docs were created in Illustrator, they most likely would have been created by a graphics person. The only problem is that none of the versions of the memos that I have (CBS, FOX and USA Today) show Illustrator as the program that created them. Where did you get your version that shows this?

I am sickened and angered by this whole ugly fraud perpetrated on the people of America. They are trying to influence an election. That is a crime.

DOWN WITH THE DEMOCRAT-MEDIA COMPLEX. THEY SHOULD BE CRUSHED LIKE THE MARXIST COCKROACHES THEY ARE.

I agree there is nothing exceptional about the metadata itself from the PDF files. What is interesting to me are the different versions distributed to the media outlets. I'm inclined to believe there is something to the different versions floating around. A good investigation piece would be to track when and how CBS made the docs available to the world.

was 2/14/04 the day the White House released Bush's official guard records?

Does anyone know which laws apply to forging government documents?

Is there any law that covers the malicious use of the forged memos?

I'm not seeing much in the way of MSM investigation on this front.

Froggy

Kinkos usually has computers at the store that people can rent by the hour to use and then print their documents. Someone needs to go to that Kinkos in Texas and search the drives of all of the public computers to find if the files were saved to the drives.

#153 - Dar ul Harb

Thanks, I am now quivering in anticipation of my first hat-tip from Charles.

How 'bout it, your Lizardness?

Umm, I've been in the graphics business for twenty-five years, and cannot find any reference to an Illustrator version "6.66"

Current versions of Illustrator are at 11.0. There was a version 6.0 in around 1996.

I do sincerely hope to stand corrected.

oops... I meant the latter URL was retrieved (on Sep.18th) at 01:27:38 GMT...

It was this other one I saw that was retrieved at 1:10:12 GMT, same day...
[Link: 216.239.57.104...]

Seems it was a big Retrieving Day on the 18th...

Wouldn't they have used AdobeCapture to convert a faxed document? In any modern office I've been in, all of the systems are on a network of some sort. If not, then Adobe would catch the local PC time and date. What are the odds of all three of them being out of sync?

Nite all:

gotta get up and go in the morning

Renee, don't stay up all night again.

And who said that blogs don't have checks? Here was a good lead, but in the end, it turned out to be nothing.

Ah, but now the DU/moveon.org LLLs will be in a frenzy trying to prove that Fox News originated the hoax, and that LGF is covering up for them!

OT:

Sep 20, 10:42 PM EDT

Bush Campaign Raises $260 Million Total

By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The GOP's decision to hold its presidential nominating convention a month later than the Democratic gathering is giving President Bush a big financial advantage in the campaign's final weeks.

Not only does Democratic hopeful John Kerry have to make his $75 million in full government financing for the general-election campaign stretch a month longer than Bush does, but the Democratic National Committee has also started burning through the money it has banked to promote its nominee faster than the Republican National Committee has.

#159 mkanderson

CBS faxed the memos all over the place. MSNBC has copies showing the sender phone number from CBS.

[Link: msnbcmedia.msn.com...]

From:
USAToday: "Memos debate eclipses content"

Posted 9/12/2004 11:07 PM

Updated 9/13/2004 11:38 PM

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

excerpt:

"USA TODAY obtained copies of the documents independently soon after the 60 Minutes segment aired Wednesday, from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations. The person refused to be identified out of fear of retaliation. It is unclear where the documents, if they are real, had been kept in the intervening three decades.

The White House, which was given copies of the documents by CBS, distributed them in e-mail to reporters Wednesday.

Bartlett, the White House spokesman, who was interviewed by CBS, did not address specifics contained in the memos but said as he has before that Bush fulfilled his service obligations. Bartlett cited as proof the fact that Bush received an honorable discharge."

Nite Bernie :)

Interesting, I interviewed David Van Os (Burkett's former lawyer) today for my paper. he said that Burkett was given a call in "the first week of february" by someone with experience in the Tx AIr Nat'l Guard, telling him that they had come across these docs.

very interesting.

Well, good night y'all.

Keep your independently-rotating lizard eyes searching for more FACTS.

Adie;

just found where I got that in my head. It's the "Bush_Military_01.pdf" file that I believe I picked up at CBS. Its doc summary says:

Link is here for those who don't have it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Bush_Military_01 .pdf

Now, this is even more interesting because it's a clean version (original?).

Is this document's authenticity in dispute?

#161 froggy
It's a fed offense

#173 unoh, I am falling back into old IRC habits
"nite Bernie"---less letters to type nite/night

*Ahem* goodnight Bernie :)

157 Pax Americana - I was wrong about associating Illustrator with this particular file. That was one of the ones I got from CBS (Bush_Military_01.pdf). That wrong thinking did make me pursue this more enthusiatically. I just think I can't trust anything about the images in the files: from the fax date to the signatures. I just can't figure out where the BS stops.

OT :)

U.S. to sell Israel 5,000 smart bombs

Among the bombs the air force will get are 500 one-ton bunker busters that can penetrate two-meter-thick cement walls; 2,500 regular one-ton bombs; 1,000 half-ton bombs; and 500 quarter-ton bombs.

#174 - Rod

DMN?

Just read the USA Today story, oh my God, this is getting better and better, now the DNC is involved with the confidential source courtesy of the CBS producer. If this was a screenplay I would have put it down by now as too far fetched.

#165 casey, you're correct. see my earlier response on the illustrator issue... it was a different file from CBS (Bush_Military_01.pdf) and it was Illustrator, but the 6.66 was associated with PDF Library, not Illustrator. :-/

I'm not surprised that there are folks out there faxing around documents that they could email. A lot of people learned how to use a fax machine and haven't learned anything new since!

(I have a friend who was a clerk at a securities firm. One time a client owned some bearer bonds (negotiable securities much like cash) which he was selling to the firm. He couldn't understand why he couldn't just fax them the bonds. My friend said sure, they would take the faxes, as long as the guy would accept faxes of $100 bills as payment!)

cathy :-)

65 American Infidel

If their computer is hooked up to a network, the clock on the puter is updated automatically and you can only adjust it if your puter is disconnected...

Not necessarily. The IT guys at my work have everything locked down so I can't connect to the Apple time server, and one of them hinted once that work had a time server but I never got the info how to connect to it. I set my system time by looking at my cellphone.
Also in the long-ago, one could eke out 30-day trial shareware by setting their system time back...

#174 rod, please read all of Pax's comments... the date could have been set incorrectly on the creating PC. The coincidence is very interesting though. Maybe there's still more for us to learn, whatever that is.

#176 Max, I do not know that any of these Bush files are in question. Were those supposed to have come from the WH? There were 2 groups of files at the CBS news location on the left side of the politics page that day. There's files 01 through 06 of that series.

There's nothing new under the sun, as someone famous once said, but think about this (for anyone who hasn't already):

In seeing both the forest AND the trees simultaneously, how desperate must the LLL and its mouthpiece, the MSM, be to use (amateurish) forged documents of President Bush's TANG record to attempt to bring the president down?

I mean, is this the closet thing they can think of as a reprehensible act? Missing a military physical? His commanding officer considered him a...a...*gasp* fortunate son? While the likes of Bill Clinton, who, among other things, sexually preys on stupidly starstruck young girls?

I mean, think of all of the hidden foibles of any given, random person--marital infidelity, bribery, theft, cruelty, pathological lying--any number of things. Now, this isn't a confessional, but I know a lot of wrong things I've done that would probably come back to bite me on my fundament if they ever found the light of day and I tried to run for office; the same with many people I know--they have many, many buried transgressions. Not evil people, but people who have clearly, majorly, and secretly screwed up. Even the president himself has a past supposedly of illegal drugs and alcoholism. (But he's confessed to doing them.)

And the best dirt they can remotely dig up on the guy/make up about the guy is that he may have missed a military physical or that his commanding officer didn't like him?

How could you NOT vote for him?

/Thus endeth my half-assed, but well-meaning lesson. Forgive me if my post seems--silly. I'm nursing a cold and I've had two shots of NyQuil and two Actifeds. I feel good (I knew that I would.)

Joel T.

Looking at seven other converted faxed/copied documents on CBS. Not one of them has the creation date set before the document should have been faxed.

All the others make sense. In other words. CBS only screwed this one up?

Even if this turns out to be nothing more than a wrong clock on a Fox computer I do believe I'll sleep a little better tonight knowing that the Unblinking Eye of the Lizardoid Army is on the watch for deceit by the MSM.

Now for a suggestion for the Pajamahadeen...Kerry had a Reserve obligation when he went off of Active Duty. Why didn't he ever serve it?

QM

Dime IV, an excellent point. If this is you on Nyquil, hurry back and write more when you're over the snuffles. :)

if you google this - "february 6, 2004" texas mcauliffe it brings up quite a few hits...

185--thanks for the heads up. I consider myself briefed

Pax--I think i catch the drift regarding your previous posts. your posints are well made. i wish I had checked them--a long day as they say.

forgive me--DMN?

thanks, Roddy

Re: the original source of the docs - I still suspect that Burkett is the forger. He has made too many comments about "reassembling" docs as well as being the only one who claims to have seen these docs in the first place (Google him and see his comments about being present for the "cleansing" of Bush's Guard files which, according to Burkett, contained "Killian's memos.")

Plus, FWIW, I know he has a computer. He has signed many of his online Bushitler rants with "BBUrkett16@aol.com." Using AIM, I was able to send him a chat invitation (which he did not respond to), but was able to see from his profile that he had been online for 15 hours. I'm no AOL expert, but I'm pretty sure that to have an "online" status, you have to be actively surfing (probably Googling himself.) Otherwise, your profile shows you as idle. Not definitive proof, of course, but could be relevant info.

Also, considering his age, it's possible, indeed likely that he would know just enough to use Word without knowing about the "fingerprints" that Word would leave on a document. The fakes were amateurish, but an amateur with limited computer knowledge would never suspect the obviousness of the hoax.

My 2c.

It's probably a screwy systems clock at Fox causing it.

However, the real interesting story is the USAToday story about CBS arranging a meeting with the Kerry campaign. This thing is turning into Watergate: Reloaded

#187 - yup

Can't ya see them draggin rather away in a straightjacket sayin..."but he missed a physical I tell ya..he missed a physical"

gimme a break

Quilly, Even if my little "nugget" leads nowhere, do I get to be an honorary lizardoid?! hehehe... That would be a very fine thing.

According to a Free Republic posting, a lawyer for Mr. Burkett, Gabe Quintanilla, said Monday that his client was given the documents at the livestock show in March, and kept them to himself because he did not know whether they were authentic.

If this is true, it matches the February creation date of the Fox version of the documents.

#189 Quilly Mammoth

Inquiring minds want to know. First hit on google for "Kerry Reserve obligation"

Bondage.com Forums: Fetish, Bondage, and BDSM Message Boards: There is a Reserve obligation period Kerry
was required to fullfill upon being released from Active Duty

Didn't read it cause I'm at work, but pretty funny to find it.

Checked my copies of the documents from 9/9/04. They all have the 9/8/04 creation date.

FoxNews appears to have recieved the CBS version by fax, then used that to create their own .pdf

I agree with [Engineer]: FoxNews had an incorrectly set clock.

I don't see anything more sinister here. Sorry.

Still curious whether anybody knows if Adobe imbeds serial number data somehow in its documents. Anybody know?

Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge

February 6, 2004
NewsMax.com

The ex-military man who first launched charges during the 2000 presidential campaign that President Bush had gone AWOL from the National Guard has recanted his story.

The account from Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, who told the Boston Globe four years ago that Bush never showed for Guard drills with his Alabama unit, had become the centerpiece of Democratic attacks on the White House in recent days.

"Had [Bush] reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Gen. Turnipseed told the Globe in May 2000. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

But on Wednesday Gen. Turnipseed reversed course, telling NBC News, "I don't know if [Bush] showed up, I don't know if he didn't. I don't remember how often I was even at the base."

Still, the same day the retired general had withdrawn the allegation, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe was citing Turnipseed's earlier, erroneous account in a bid to keep AWOL charges against Bush afloat.

"The commander this week reiterated the entire time [Bush] was supposed to show up in the Alabama National Guard he wasn't there," McAuliffe told CNN's "Inside Politics" on Wednesday. "He said he made it up later, but you don't have that option. When you're supposed to serve our country, you're supposed to be there."

In fact, McAuliffe was wrong on the latter point as well, since Guard regulations expressly allow for make-up drills, according to no less an authority than Gen. Turnipseed himself.

In July 2000, the New York Times reported, "Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter."

Asked if Chairman McAuliffe was prepared to apologize to the White House for misstating Gen. Turnipseed's position on the Bush AWOL allegation, a spokesman for the DNC told NewsMax, "I don't know. We'll get back to you."

Many of the Kinko's stores self service computers have Illustrator 6.66 and Adobe for creating documents available.

Remember I work for one part time and we have it ou our self service computers. I think it it now standard for all of the stores to have it.

#172-RBMN-

If USAToday claims they got the documents independently soon after the 60 minutes segment aired, how does that jive with my entries #148 and #166?

Looks to me that USAToday had the six memos at least by "2004-02-14".

Which, if you visit the links in #148 and #166, you'll see the AWOLBush people seem to know about as well.

And this page from the AWOLBush people
[Link: www.awolbush.com...]
has a link directly to the (un-cached) version of the 2004-02-14 USAToday link. It's about 2/3 way down page: link is called "(More documents linked from USAToday.com)". See... it links to USAToday's latest version of the page, updated today, Sept. 20th (at last check).

Notice another thing about the link...
[Link: www.awolbush.com...]
all the docs that seem to be Pres.Bush's official files have a URL title of "doc[some number].gif", while the links for the memos have their own style of title.

hhm.

#96 adie

At this time I am unable to find even one .pdf on Fox with a screwy timestamp. They are all correct.

As I posted above, the same with CBS.

Am I missing something? What's the implication of this finding?

It seems straightforward enough: the document was written in Word, printed, faxed to CBS, then scanned and converted to PDF using Illustrator. No doubt CBS's graphics department is full of people who know that tool backwards and forwards. The weird date could be anything from a default setting to a bad computer clock.

The alternative is that someone smart enough to use Illustrator to forge a fax header was apparently dumb enough to miss the implications of 12-point Times New Roman in a document from 1972. Unless someone clues me in with something compelling, I'm taking Occam's Razor to this.

zombie strikes again!!

Everybody is required to check out my amazing new Web page devoted to yesterday's "How Berkeley Can You Be?" parade. Moonbattery supreme like you've never seen before. Even includes a beauty pageant for you male chauvinists.

#193 Pax Americana, I hope we find out the whole story about a lot of things before Nov. You may be right about Burnett. He seems so willing to fall on his sword though. Why is that? hrmmm...

Thanks everyone for thinking this through with me. The 2/6/04 date has been bothering me for days. LOL I'll sleep better this evening knowing we've explored the possibilities together.

Nite everyone.

#201

Many of the Kinko's stores self service computers have Illustrator 6.66 and Adobe for creating documents available.

Would it be possible that the self-service computers at the Kinkos store would still have backup copies of the documents/memos if they were created at the Kinkos?

Sarah... ummm... i emailed fox about the dates. wonder why it's different now unless they obtained 'better' files. i've gotta crash, but i could post the files I've got somewhere tomorrow if you want them.

OT - From dkos...

I was wading through his bullshit-filled site and cringing that humans actually think like they do when I stumbled across this:

When do you take to the streets?

Please God, let it be this easy...

(I hate to give him the hits, but they're an interesting bunch... interesting like science project interesting.)

Here's a link for Kerry's being AWOL and violating the UCMJ

It's a fun read.

[Link: www.geoffmetcalf.com...]

February 12, 2004 story about Burkett making claims against Bush:
[Link: www.timeswatch.org...]

If your pdf dates are correct, they are a week before such story.

adie,

What I'm saying is that ALL of the other Adobe .pdf's that I've been able to check on FOX, CBS, and USAToday have correct timestamps. It appears to me that an incorrect clock is not the issue here.

#207

Normally Kinkos cleans the hard drives every 30 days - unless it was done at full service and the customer has an account and requested that it be saved. Then it would be burned to CD normally.

We were amazed when one news story claimed they called the Kinkos and a "clerk" confirmed he had an account there. That empolyee has most likely been fired - that is big offense for Kinkos.

forget about the time stamp on the docs -- focus on Rather's comment that the source of the documents was irrefutable...has to be Max Cleland

Perhaps the Gipper did it. President Reagan's birthday is February 6th.
The same date as mine and damned proud of it!

From KerrySpot:
"By the accounts of Mr. Rather and other officials, they began to understand that their report was falling apart last Thursday, when Mr. Burkett confessed to CBS that he had lied about where he got the four memorandums. While he had initially said he got them from another former guardsman, people at CBS said, he then told them that the documents came through a convoluted process that started with a phone call from a stranger and ended with the handoff of an envelope at the Houston Livestock Show, that city's version of Mardi Gras"

The Houston Livestock Show is at the first week of February -- the .pdf file has been dated as Feb. 6, 2004 (see Little Green Footballs).
IS THIS SOMETHING?
Who knows?

Early Feb of 04 was an active time for the reincarnation of the Bush TANG story. Max Cleland was on HardBall on Monday Feb 9 calling for Bush to provide pay stubs from 1973. (produced the next day by WH) Ann Coulter's Feb 11 article stated "Former Senator Max Cleland is the Democrat's designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service". The story goes on to recount that Cleland injured himself in Vietnam by dropping a live grenade at his own feet though not under enemy fire nor in combat. Though tragic, his injuries was akin to a jeep accident and were inflicted while on his way to drink some beer with buddies.

Simultaneously, someone, possibly an amaturish brute who possesses only rudimentary computing skills, creates these fugazi documents using equipment that easily identifies them as fabrications. He stashes them away and waits for his moment.

In late August, Cleland visits Crawford, Texas to deliver his letter to President Bush emploring him to disavow the Swift Boat Ads. Bush refuses to see Cleland, and Cleland is furious. He rages to the assembled media. Crawford is only a short distance up Route 6 from Abilene, Tx, the home of Mr. Burkett.

In late August, the Kerry campaign is on life support and former Clinton advisors Lockhart, Begala and Carville are called in to help. They announce their intention to pursuade Kerry to begin using Pesonnal Charictaristic Comparisons as his main campaign thrust (ie negative personal attacks on W) Within a week, CBS is tipped to the "documents" proving Bush received preferential treatment getting in TANG and getting out. Lockhart admits talking to Burkett. Cleland admits meeting with Burkett.

Too many coinkydinks.

NYTimes reporting:

"... While he [Burkett] had initially said he got them from another former guardsman, people at CBS said, he then told them that the documents came through a convoluted process that started with a phone call from a stranger and ended with the handoff of an envelope at the Houston Livestock Show, that city's version of Mardi Gras."

Link

It appears the 2004 Houston Livestock Show was March 2 to 21, 2004.

Hey, I tried to check the Fox link earlier in this thread and there is now NO creation date in the properties for the file. Am I missing something or has it been removed since this thread started?

This is the link I tried from Max Darkside:

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

Didn't someone email fox about this earlier? Now, when I click "file" then "properties" there is no creation date... WTF?

conspiracy theories abound...

It looks like the PDF from the FOX douments have a headers that had been white out or erased.

I wonder if what was erased can be recovered in Photoshop by adjusting brightness and colors.

Why is Bush's address blacked out on the CBS memo, but NOT on the Fox Memo?

Partial headers on pages 1 and 4 of Fox memos are "PAGE 02" and "PAGE 04" (with scientific zeros).

Also, it's easier to get to Acrobat Document Properties by clicking on the arrow box just above the veritcal scroll bar on the right, then clicking on Document Properties.

ahhh, thx grassy knoll, found it, it's still there.

ack, I meant biff (blushing) Sorry about that! Thx for the tip re properties in pdf

westtexasjew

CBS said, he then told them that the documents came through a convoluted process that started with a phone call from a stranger and ended with the handoff of an envelope at the Houston Livestock Show, that city's version of Mardi Gras"

OK...now we're getting somewhere...the Houston Livestock Show. How appropriate that the repeating theme of this story is B.S.

If you look at the Fox PDF documents and look at the first page, at the top, you see a line signifying the start of the original prescanned document. If you look just a tad lower, you see what looks like some text that had been covered over with white out.

Re- the white-out header. I think Fox had the version with the CBS fax header info, and that's what they whited out.

Grassy and Pax,

I just told you what those cut headers are:
the first page is PAGE 02 and the fourth page is
Page 04. The second and third pages don't show any remaining header on the upper right, though the first page also seems to have a partial centered header, and the second page has a partial left header.

OT

Beheading victim has been positively identified.

They have recovered the body.

My prayers go out to the family.

OT -

Our NIH Tax dollars at work

Chimp Quick Time Upper Right

#232 Pax Americana

Re- the white-out header. I think Fox had the version with the CBS fax header info, and that's what they whited out.

Another point: Page Three of the Fox PDF set has the bottom half of the page blocked out.
Compare Page One of this ( [Link: img.slate.msn.com...] ) 4 page PDF set to Page Three of the Fox PDF set (they're both "01 August 1972" "Memorandum for Record ... Suspension of Flight Status) The single page PDF from C BS-snooze also shows four numbered paragraphs. However the Fox set was PDF'ed, there's a problem with that particular document. Whether or not it buggers the whole analysis or not, I don't know.

Also - The Slate PDF set apparently has the fax headers NOT shown in the C BS Docs, but are incompletely whited-out in the FOX ones. The Slate PDFs have C BS fax headers... but there's NO fax headers going INTO C BS that we've seen, to my knowledge.

Lysander

I'd like to reemphasize one point. The Fox May 4 Memo has a non-redacted address. Therefore, the copy that Fox received was sent to them before the copy that CBS posted as a PDF was redacted!

So, either 1) CBS sent copies out to their competitors without the redaction, then posted a redacted version on there own website. This was possibly to protect the privacy of the current resident of that address, but then why leave it up to Fox to violate that privacy?
Or, 2) we are looking at two sets of the same documents which went directly to each of the networks. This may be a real possibility.

The creation date is embedded in XML into the pdf.

Does anyone know where the documents can be found with the Kinko's fax number on them. They are not on CBS, Slate or Fox.

#242 max

That only came out after Strong came out of hiding and suddenly remembered seeing it on the memo --and pointing a finger toward Texas and a scapegoat so the Kerry camp could remain clean and C-BS could start back peddling...*take a breath glwing* IMHO

I can't find any copies of it with the original headers. Matter of fact, I never saw any with them. It was reported that they came from a Kinko's but I never saw the proof of it.

Another possible explanation for why the creation date on the Fox documents is so old could be that whoever created the document posted on the Fox website created it by opening an existing pdf file, deleting the contents and then inserting the scans of the memos.

I do that sort of thing all the time when I am writing proposals/design docs etc at work and it has to be in a certain format or whatever - just grab an existing doc, change the bits I need to and then "save as".

Do pdf files contain meta-data showing a change history, like Word documents do? When was the document last modified?

Is this theory plausible I wonder?

OT

The CBS apology is so anti-climactic. Rather's "unimpeachable source" was Bill Burkett.
DUH!
Where is CBS/Rather's apology to the President of the United States of America?

"I also insisted when I sat down with your staff in the first place...before I gave up any documents, I wanted to know what you were going to do with it. And I insisted that they be authenticated," Burkett told Rather.

"Dan Rather has said: 'If I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.' Mr. Rather, what you know now is what you knew then," Bozell said.

Burkett originally said he got the docs from a fellow guardsman. Who would that be, Danny boy? Another discredited wacko, or maybe another dead guy? How come you could not verify that?

Who does Burkett now say he got them from? A handoff at the Houston Livestock Show? Give us a break.

ATTN KERRY CAMPAIGN AND DNC:
Bill Burkett is a loose cannon and he will not go down alone. Time to batten down the hatches and prepare to be boarded.

Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland - time to come clean, your lives are about to be turned upside down.

At least, I hope so.

#246 Duke Newcombe

I'm not sure if there is a way to track the changes...

But, of all the docs I looked at from Fox, CBS, and USAToday...none had the time problem. None.

Just these.

Adie #107--

I spotted the same thing nearly a week ago. Unfortunately I came to the same conclusion as Engineer, namely that the document was created on a machine with a messed up clock.

Here is the simple reason why the theory about adding the fax header later doesn't make any sense: The Fox PDF shows no modification date; it was created on Feb 6 and not modified later. The idea that there was some kind of time-capsule-style dating from Febuary for September 10 is wildly improbable.

Occam's Razor says the clock was screwed up. I really wish there was more to it than that. I don't see how there could be though.

But...

Here's a mystery for the rest of you computer geeks that could still be unraveled: When was the Fortunate Son video made by the DNC??? Smoking gun, anyone?

Now I can imagine that Burkett emailed PDFs he made in Feb to CBS and those are what they used...

But the problem here is the vertical jitter that you can see on horizontal lines - you'd only get that on a FAX.

#250 song_and_dance_man

You're breaking up...is there a bad line at your end? And what do you mean by

I mean no offense if your sincere, but I found it editable.

? You found what editable? No I'm not offended, just perplexed.

I'm guessing that CBS actually got the documents in Feb and decided to sit on them until the end of the election season when negative hits have the greatest effect.

I think this is political and that's why they're so angry at the blogs (and trying so hard to ignore us). They had plans.

I did a little work with the files, including pulling them into a Visual C++ editor.

The one difference I found besides the timestamp was that the 2/6/04 file was a different PDF version, i.e. PDF Version 1.2 (for Acrobat 3.x). Every other PDF file I looked at, including the CBS, USA Today, and other PDF files posted on Foxnews.com, were PDF Version 1.4 (for Acrobat 5.x).

I would draw 1 of 2 conclusions. Either Fox News or the Kinkos in Abelliene are using an older version of Adobe Acrobat!

Someone get to that Kinkos, Fast!

Joshua--

CBS's docs are dated September. It's the Fox docs that bear the February date.

Are there any other differences between Fox's files and CBS'

DRUDGE-> USA TODAY !!!

"Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez."

First Burkett said it was George Conn that created the documents:

In earlier conversations with USA TODAY, Burkett had identified the source of the documents as George Conn, a former Texas National Guard colleague who works for the U.S. Army in Europe. Burkett now says he made up the story about Conn's involvement to divert attention from himself and the woman he now says provided him with the documents. He told USA TODAY that he also lied to CBS.

Now he says it was Lucy Ramirez.

Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez.

He certainly claims he did not author them (as I suggested in earlier threads):

"I didn't forge anything," Burkett said. "I didn't fake any documents. The only thing I've done here is to transfer documents from people I thought were real to people I thought were real. And that has been the limitation of my role. I may have been a patsy."

Link to USA Today article on Burkett and Ramirez

Who is Lucy Ramirez and why would she author these documents? Google is not helpful due to the commonality of the name.

Is the flip-flopping on who's the culprit merely a smoke screen to confuse what is really going on?

Meanwhile in the European media: (almost) nothing. I wonder how they'll explain on November 3rd...

Max Darkside,
Just read that USAT article. Does Burkett sound suicidal to you, too? He said the jinx word - patsy.
I almost feel sorry for him now.

I'm as puzzled as anyone about the date in February on the Fox PDF but I wanted to toss in another little twist that I noticed. In Acrobat, File > Document Properties > Description gives the time of creation as 8:24:48 am. But, Advanced > Document Metadata > Advanced gives the time of creation as T15:24:48Z. If my reading of PDF Reference (Fourth Edition) (PDF 1.5) is correct, the 'Z' indicates that this is Universal Time (GMT). It would seem, then, that the place this PDF was created is in the time zone seven hours behind UT. Does this sound correct? Does it lead anywhere?

There is a Lucy Ramirez who is associated with Congressman Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX-15). Hinojosa worked with Lucy Ramirez at Nuestra Clinica del Valle to ensure that their Pharr facility would receive $200,000 to expand oral health services.
Hinojosa Press Release

Congressman Hinojosa's district stretches from the Rio Grande to just south of San Antonio, and is about 175 miles SW of Houston.

Hinojosa is a vice-chair of the DNC rules committee.

Lucy Ramirez, Executive Director
Nuestra Clinica del Valle
1203 E. Ferguson
PO Drawer Q
Pharr, TX 78577
(956) 787-0787

NCV

Also interesting that there is a Dr. Armando Hinojosa
on the Board of Directors. No evidence I could find of his relation to the congressman.
Board

I know I'm jumpin' in late, but I just gotta throw my 2 cents in. :)

Windows systems (whether network or internet connected) did not automatically update their system clock until WindowsXP (and maybe ME - didn't test on that OS much). For 9x/2000 you needed to install third party software to check your system time for you. All the same, it's still pretty easy for the system time to be wrong, even on XP. A poorly configured network (or firewall) would be all it takes to stop the machine from connecting for time updates.

Illustrator 6 is a fairly old edition, it was released in '96. I doubt it would even work on Windows 2000 or XP. That makes it a pretty safe bet that the system clock could be way off.

These scans are supposedly of faxed copies of the .docs. IIRC, the fax headers on the .docs were from SeeBS. They couldn't have scanned them until they received them, so the files should have a pretty recent creation date.

OTOH, if SeeBS has had the .docs for 6 weeks like they claim, I would think that they probably would have wanted to scan them right around when they got them, so the creation date on the PDFs should be right around the end of July or beginning of August.

What I am trying to say is, IMHO, the file creation date of 2/6/04 doesn't really tell us much at all.

But, then again, I could be totally wrong about it too. :)

#262 crych

What time zone is Texas in? Isn't it GMT - 7? That would mean Zulu time and local time are correct.

#262

Looks like Texas is GMT - 5.

If their system time/date is off, stands to reason the time zone could be set wrong also.

I think I am missing a step here. Is george Conn alive? If CBS thought he was the source of the memos, didn't they bother to call him? Did they ask him about the memos and he gave a "no comment" so they thought it was verified? If they were given a name of someone who is alive, how on earth did they not follow through on that name before they aired the story?

A couple of other comments

(1) I don't know where 'adie' got the information about 'Illustrator 6.66'. I have downloaded the Fox doc's from both links he posted and both were created using the HP PrecisionScan Pro software driver with an HP ScanJet scanner. The PrecisionScan Pro software includes the libraries for producing PDF directly from the image captured by the scanner.

(2) Since HP PrecisionScan Pro is a software driver that can be downloaded free of charge from HP, there is no need for anyone to diddle the clocks on the computer on which it is installed in order to keep it working. I can think of four or five other explanations, none of them very convincing.

(3) Perhaps someone is pulling our (collective) leg? As was mentioned earlier, it is pretty easy to fake the creation date and creator of a PDF file.

crych

The .pdf says it is version 1.2 (Acrobat 3.x). That's a pretty old version also. They are up to version 6 now...

I just google'd Adobe Illustrator 6.66 and couldn't find anything. I wonder if that version is as real as the typewriter that "produced" the original .docs.

Has anybody else checked on this?

When SeeBS distributed the .docs to the other "news" organizations, did SeeBS send out digital or paper copies?

If SeeBS sent out digital copies, then Fox wouldn't have needed to make any changes, so the file dates should match. (Which they don't. Hmmm.)

If SeeBS sent out paper copies, Fox would have needed to make their own scan. Hence the different file date and Acrobat versions...

toonman,

You are right that PDF 1.2 is quite old: my CD of Acrobat 3 is copyright 1996. Nevertheless, Distiller 6 can produce documents in PDF 1.2 and there are still a lot of old Readers out there for which one might want to produce earlier versions of PDF.

In this case, since the libraries are supplied as part of HP's software, we could be seeing a failure on HP's part to license more up-to-date versions of PDF. On the other hand, we could be seeing an older scanner and computer running an earlier version of the PrecisionScan Pro driver.

As far as I can tell, there never was an Illustrator 6.66 and Adobe does not use this kind of numbering system for point releases. In any case, the PDF files under discussion, those with the creation date in February, show no signs of having been created or altered by any version of Illustrator.

toonman and crych, I was wrong about the connection of Illustrator 6.66 with this PDF. I'd checked a bunch of files. The Illustrator created ones have filenames of "Bush_Military_01.pdf" there are six numbered files in that group from CBS. AND It said Illustrator was the creator, but the actual 6.66 version number was associated with an AdobePDF Library that is specified as the "Producer." Those PDFs may have come from the WH, but I got them from CBS. Sorry for the wrong piece of information tying Illustrator to the Fox file. I'd explained a couple of times earlier, but there's a lot of posts. It's easy to miss.

On setting a PDF's Compatibility: that can be done in the Distiller utility by choosing Settings > Job Options and selecting "Acrobat 3.0 (PDF 1.2)" in the Compatibility menu. I think that you may also be able to set this through printer preferences if you are using one of Adobe's generic PPDs (printer drivers) to create PDFs, as you most likely would if you click the PDF icon in newer versions of Word.

Hooray!!!

Sky News in Britain is finally reporting on the faked Bush/Killian memos!

It's only been like 3 weeks!

Maybe my mind is simply warped, but I'm going to make this potentially intriguing observation...

I just google'd Adobe Illustrator 6.66 and couldn't find anything.

Has anyone else noticed the "6.66" -- the "number of the beast" from the Bible?

For the Adobe pro's out there -- is that a valid version number and a coincidence, or a faked version number?

What / who is Lucy Ramirez?
My only thoughts are a worker-bee on the DNC payroll.
Or, more likely, a wild goose!

There is a Richard "Lucy" ramirez in Houston - a punk rock acid band member

#276

I believe adie mentioned before that s/he was mistaken about the Illustrator being version 6.66, it was the PDF library v 6.66.

Last night on a local Denver news (9News KUSA)they showed Little Green Footballs, mentioned LGF, and actually displayed Charles' CYA microsoft word overlay (above)

so cool!!!

This morning I turned on the Today show. They did mention the story but left out most of the forgery details.

I'm coming late to this thread, and haven't read most of it, so this fact might have already been touched on.

Kinko's, at least the one in my neighborhood, offers a computer workstation equipped with the "Adobe Suite," as described by the Kinko's employ with whom I just spoke. The first program he mentioned in said suite is Illustrator.

I was also informed that not all computers in a given Kinko's will have the Adobe suite. These computers rent for twice the rate of the computers with MS Office-only installations.

If I remember correctly, there was a thread here that discussed the issue of the acronym "OETR" being wrong yet a Google search found this incorrect acronym in only nine web pages prior to the CBS story and all nine hits were from the DNC web site dated March/April!

From Andy from Chapel Hill the Freeper

There are too many entries for me to read right now...so if this has been covered...sorry! But I opened the pdf in Adobe Photoshop CS (the pdf from the fox website) and under file->file info...was the following information:

Created: 2/6/2004 Application: HP PrecisionScan Pro
Modified: 2/6/2004 Format: application/pdf

I don't know if this matters..but wanted to post what Photoshop has!

This has been said many times already, but I just want to reiterate what admiration I have for all of you who have done such incredible, in-depth detective work on the electronic side of this debacle as well as the names associated with the paper trail. With you guys and girls around, I feel really optimistic about the future.

You all are the true lizardoids--like Charles himself--who will save the day; consequently, I don't feel worthy to be in your midst...but I'm glad you let guys like me tag along. ;^)

Health and happiness to all of you menschen. Berkeley/Paris/Mecca/et alia delenda est.

Joel T.

#272

Toonman:

"SeeBS"! I love it! I don't know if that's original with you, but it's the first time I've seen it. Perfect.

As for the thread, I read some last night, and then this morning, but every time that I read something that makes sense, someone else debunks it. Not having much expertise in this area, can anyone sum up what we know about this (thread topic), what we can say for certain and what is still in dispute, what it means to the greater story (source, collusion, coordination), and any general consensus, up to this point? Thanks.

Check out the timeline here established by Burkett via drudge

Burketts latest version of getting the docs

Has anyone read about Burkett burning the original memos? What are the implications in terms of creating an electronic paper trial? Burkett never met with Ramirez face to face but accepted an envelope from a man who handed him an envelope and "left quickly" Hmmm.

This from [Link: ...]

He said that [his whistleblowing activity in the National Guard] led to a telephone call in March from Ramirez and her offer to provide documents damaging to President Bush. Burkett said Ramirez told him she had seen him the previous month in an appearance on the MSNBC program Hardball. . . . "There is something I have that I want to make sure gets out," he quoted her as saying. He said Ramirez claimed to possess Killian's "correspondence file," which would prove Burkett's allegations that Bush had problems as a Guard fighter pilot.
Burkett said he arranged to get the documents during a trip to Houston for a livestock show in March. But instead of being met at the show by Ramirez, he was approached by a man who asked for Burkett, handed him an envelope and quickly left, Burkett recounted. "I didn't even ask any questions," Burkett said. "Should I have? Yes. Maybe I was duped. I never really even considered that."
By Monday, USA TODAY had not been able to locate Ramirez or verify other details of Burkett's account. Three people who worked with Killian in the early 1970s said they don't recognize her name. Burkett promised to provide telephone records that would verify his calls to Ramirez, but he had not done so by Monday night.
Find that crazy typewriter that produced the memos and you'll find Lucy Ramirez. But again, I digress. The next part is important.
After he received the documents in Houston, Burkett said, he drove home, stopping on the way at a Kinko's shop in Waco to copy the six memos. In the parking lot outside, he said, he burned the ones he had been given and the envelope they were in. Ramirez was worried about leaving forensic evidence on them that might lead back to her, Burkett said, acknowledging that the story sounded fantastic.