Does anyone have any imformation on the faked Northwoods Document.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Specifically on how it is computer generated and printed, not type written, or Auto typed?
How it has Phrases that are not from the time?
Phrases Like on a Holiday that are not, common usage in the USA.

[jhunter1163]

A woman named Carol Valentine, who was the curator of the Waco Holocaust Museum, had a pretty good debunk on that. The only link I can find to her archive is broken, but it must be out there somewhere.

ETA: I found some more stuff on her. She's insane, a total CT nutbar.. but she doesn't buy Northwoods, at all. Caveat emptor.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A woman named Carol Valentine, who was the curator of the Waco Holocaust Museum, had a pretty good debunk on that. The only link I can find to her archive is broken, but it must be out there somewhere.


Thank you but I have seen that just wondered if any more information was known since the texts are clearly not from the times the document was written.

An Example of what I am referring to, is on page, 8 go to the third line, look at the word shells, notice the fonts and position of the letters especially the top of the Ls in the word.
Now look at the next line the word Installations and notice the same font only in Italics, since a separate dye has to be used for the Italics there should be some front change, and also some misalignment of the type.
There is none, it is clearly not a type writer or auto type document.
I have only noticed about a fifty or so abnormalities in the Documents that could only be computer produced.

[Gravy]

Careful – you could be walking into a false font operation.

[jhunter1163]

Did machines capable of typing in multiple fonts exist in 1963? In every document I've seen from the time, underlining was used for emphasis, not italics. Italics was pretty much the province of typeset documents (newspapers, books, etc.) I may be totally off base here, but it's a thought, and probably a better one than a lot of CTers could come up with (consoles self)

[StoneWT]

Crazy,

Carol Valentine is a total whackjob (http://www.public-action.com/). She is a Holocaust Denier, claims the surviving Waco Branch Davidians are government stooges, pushes the admittedly fake flamethrower tank footage at Waco, and advocates some of the most ludicrous 9/11 theories. Anything from her pen is automatically tainted.

Her critique (http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html) of Northwoods is pure CT. Her complaint about a phrase is asinine. You're being taken for a ride. If you are looking at copies of the documents online, would you mind posting a link? If you are looking at paper copies, would you mind telling us where you got them from?

Also, Operation Northwoods does not support the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Carol Valentine's reason for attacking the document is jealousy. She felt that the 1993 Waco massacre should have received the press that went to Northwoods.


It seemed remarkable that ABC was willing to show the US military in such a bad light. Surely the Waco Holocaust was a more contemporaneous US military scandal, yet ABC continues to cover it up. I wondered at that.


She is just another nutcase that is convinced her theories are the greatest things since sliced bread and ketchup in a squeeze bottle.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Crazy,

Carol Valentine is a total whackjob (http://www.public-action.com/). She is a Holocaust Denier, claims the surviving Waco Branch Davidians are government stooges, pushes the admittedly fake flamethrower tank footage at Waco, and advocates some of the most ludicrous 9/11 theories. Anything from her pen is automatically tainted.

Her critique (http://www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html) of Northwoods is pure CT. Her complaint about a phrase is asinine. You're being taken for a ride. If you are looking at copies of the documents online, would you mind posting a link? If you are looking at paper copies, would you mind telling us where you got them from?

Also, Operation Northwoods does not support the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Carol Valentine's reason for attacking the document is jealousy. She felt that the 1993 Waco massacre should have received the press that went to Northwoods.



She is just another nutcase that is convinced her theories are the greatest things since sliced bread and ketchup in a squeeze bottle.

I got complete copies from the website, that oridginally published them on line.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Also I sent to ABC for copies of the documents, both sets of Documents match exactly.

Both have the same mistakes! They are undoubtedly Computer edited documents.

The on a Holiday reference is a term most often used in the UK, and not in the USA at the time.

The other mistakes http://chainsawsanders.com/Northwoodsbadphotoshop.JPG

How did the top of the LLs get misaligned, but the bases remained strait, not possible on an auto type or type writer, but it is possible with a computer generated Document.

The font dies on a type writer are preset into metal you would have had to actuall physically bend the dies to do that, then straiten them afterwards!

PS. 1993 had nothing to do with 1997 documents.

" Released, November 18, 1997 by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/index.html

[Ersby]

While I'm no expert, the quality of the text on that pdf looks the same as other pdfs I've read from the US govt, complete with minor distortions, which may have something to do with the original document being copied/scanned/converted to pdf.

[StoneWT]

Crazy,

PS. 1993 had nothing to do with 1997 documents.

Who said that it did? Read the critique by Carol Valentine. I even posted the quote from her concerning the press given to Northwoods and why she felt it should have gone to the Waco Branch Davidian Massacre.

The on a Holiday reference is a term most often used in the UK, and not in the USA at the time.

The other mistakes

Umm, why is the first thing a mistake?

As for your other mistakes ;) , you are looking at copies. As 'dirty' as many of the pages look, they may be multi-generation copies. Many of them were copied at angles instead of being lined up properly in the copier. Copying produces artifacts. Type something up, take it down to Kinko's, copy it multiple times, and expose the conspiracy! :dig:

[nathanmcginty]

I got complete copies from the website, that oridginally published them on line.


Also I sent to ABC for copies of the documents, both sets of Documents match exactly.

Both have the same mistakes! They are undoubtedly Computer edited documents.

The on a Holiday reference is a term most often used in the UK, and not in the USA at the time.

The other mistakes

How did the top of the LLs get misaligned, but the bases remained strait, not possible on an auto type or type writer, but it is possible with a computer generated Document.

The font dies on a type writer are preset into metal you would have had to actuall physically bend the dies to do that, then straiten them afterwards!



Yeah, the GWU NS Archive is a pretty impressive resource. They don't really have a lot invested in hosting bogus documents.

Believe me, there's a lot crazier stuff that the US Gov't actually went through with - unliike Northwoods. Check out any of the Operation Mongoose stories - trying to get Castro's beard to fall out, slipping him LSD, giving him an exploding cigar. The whole CIA/LSD story is crazy enough just by itself

(i'm not allowed to post links yet. :( )

[CurtC]

Specifically on how it is computer generated and printed, not type written, or Auto typed?

Phrases Like on a Holiday that are not, common usage in the USA.
I looked through the document, and didn't see any examples of italics. Everything I see looks like an old-fashioned typewriter printed it. Can you point out where they are?

The phrase "on a holiday" is not the common Britishism. They say "on holiday" the same way we say "on vacation." "On a holiday" is not the idiom, so does not indicate British English. The document says "a group of college students off on a holiday" which could mean "a group of college students off on a day that's a holiday." The word "vacation" to me usually implies a break from work, which I would not use to refer to college students. The word "break" is more common for college students, and that could very well by why they used the unambiguous "on a holiday" in that document. I don't know for sure, but it's certainly not good evidence that the document is a fake.

[kevin]

Did machines capable of typing in multiple fonts exist in 1963? In every document I've seen from the time, underlining was used for emphasis, not italics. Italics was pretty much the province of typeset documents (newspapers, books, etc.) I may be totally off base here, but it's a thought, and probably a better one than a lot of CTers could come up with (consoles self)

the selectric came out in 61/62. It had a ball you could change to get different fonts. I believe some of the balls had both normal and italic on them.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I looked through the document, and didn't see any examples of italics. Everything I see looks like an old-fashioned typewriter printed it. Can you point out where they are?

The phrase "on a holiday" is not the common Britishism. They say "on holiday" the same way we say "on vacation." "On a holiday" is not the idiom, so does not indicate British English. The document says "a group of college students off on a holiday" which could mean "a group of college students off on a day that's a holiday." The word "vacation" to me usually implies a break from work, which I would not use to refer to college students. The word "break" is more common for college students, and that could very well by why they used the unambiguous "on a holiday" in that document. I don't know for sure, but it's certainly not good evidence that the document is a fake.

Look at the documents again the LL in the word Installations are slanting in such a manor that the original dyes on the machine would have to bend, you can not slant the top of the letter and have the base be strait, it is not possible with metal dyes it is possible to slant the letter if the paper moves but only the whole letter not just the top of it.
Similar patterns are seen though out the document, I have checked documents from that time actual ones, that pattern can not be found on any of them, but it is found only in Northwoods Why?

[CurtC]

Look at the documents again the LL in the word Installations are slanting in such a manor that the original dyes on the machine would have to bend
I don't see anything bending. Can you explain it in a little more detail for me?

All I see is that there is a lot of noise, like it was a paper document that was scanned at low resolution.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

the selectric came out in 61/62. It had a ball you could change to get different fonts. I believe some of the balls had both normal and italic on them.

True but the selectric's Italic was slanted to the right, most of the northwood documents have words slanting to the left.

The only way is if they in 1962 used an early form of computer printing, and mistakes were made in the software. Most modern texts use Italics slanted to the right, not the left.

[Hellbound]

A lot of misalignment and letter lean can be done by the paper shifting while typing, as well. I've done several docuemnts on an early electric typewriter that, due to misalignment of paper/ball/roller, caused slanted or misplaced letters.

[CurtC]

Here's a blow-up of the two L's in question. What is it that you're saying about them?

[CurtC]

True but the selectric's Italic was slanted to the right, most of the northwood documents have words slanting to the left.

The only way is if they in 1962 used an early form of computer printing, and mistakes were made in the software. Most modern texts use Italics slanted to the right, not the left.
Most modern texts? Have you ever seen italics that slant to the left? I don't think I have. Are you saying that there are italics slanting to the left somewhere in that document? Where?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This picture will show you what I am talking about, it is like they pulled the intire word to the left, http://chainsawsanders.com/NorthwoodsbadphotoshopL.jpg

only you would have to change the keys on the typewriter to do it, it is easy to see in the printed copy that I have.

It looks like someone is trying to make a printed document look type written.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A lot of misalignment and letter lean can be done by the paper shifting while typing, as well. I've done several docuemnts on an early electric typewriter that, due to misalignment of paper/ball/roller, caused slanted or misplaced letters.

I have too, but never before have I seen the top slant, and the bottom be strait, since the bottom and top are on the same key and form at the same time.

[Shrinker]

This picture will show you what I am talking about, it is like they pulled the intire word to the left, http://chainsawsanders.com/NorthwoodsbadphotoshopL.jpg

only you would have to change the keys on the typewriter to do it, it is easy to see in the printed copy that I have.

It looks like someone is trying to make a printed document look type written.

Sorry Crazy but this is really starting to look like a CT analysis. I know what you're saying about the slanting but you just don't know what has happened to this document between the typewriter and your monitor. It could have been scanned and reprinted on an inkjet or is could have been photocopied and any number of old or modern copiers. Old papers can develop creases or wrinkles with will cause the letters to appear distorted when the document is duplicated. If a high contrast duplicate is made, the creases will be invisible, leaving only distorted text.

[LashL]

I do not think that the document is "faked" but rather that the misalignments throughout the document (and there are a whole lot more than just those Ls) are a result of age, multi-generation copying, scanning, etc.

Just my opinion, of course.

[R.Mackey]

Could also be this document was transcribed at some point, or photographed at a funny angle, etc.

Whether or not "Operation Northwoods" is a hoax, I don't see that it lends any evidence to the 9-11 Deniers anyway. It isn't like the 9-11 Commission is claiming that Bin Laden was the first guy who ever got the idea to crash aircraft into buildings, or that the US Government hasn't paid for studies that thought waaaaay "outside the box" in the past. It's simply irrelevant.

I seem to recall a running joke at a prominent university that involved crashing an SR-71 into commencement proceedings, for the running joke express purposes of assassinating George HW Bush. Doesn't have the least bearing on reality. You may as well lock up Tom Clancy.

Hey CrazyChainsaw, I did a literature search for unusual thermite reactions for you. Posted it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62950) in the Science forum.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Sorry Crazy but this is really starting to look like a CT analysis. I know what you're saying about the slanting but you just don't know what has happened to this document between the typewriter and your monitor. It could have been scanned and reprinted on an inkjet or is could have been photocopied and any number of old or modern copiers. Old papers can develop creases or wrinkles with will cause the letters to appear distorted when the document is duplicated. If a high contrast duplicate is made, the creases will be invisible, leaving only distorted text.

I know about the creases, but I also know that only one copy of this Document exists and that its is only a copy of a copy.
Creasing should also be evident in other ways as well.
Here is the Document at George Washington University.
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/news/20010430/

Can anyone point me to the experts that verified the document was authentic, though scientific means?
Has anyone even looked at the possibility it might have been faked?

[StoneWT]

Crazy,

Umm, it's starting to look a bit like you're grasping at straws. The supposed mistakes have reasonable explanations. There is no reason to believe it is fake. It was accepted by a prestigious school and an expert researcher. No one of any scholarly weight has noticed the supposed fakery.

In the great universe, absent any analysis, anything could possibly be fake. The question here, I believe, is "is it?" and not "what if?".

[CurtC]

This picture will show you what I am talking about, it is like they pulled the intire word to the left,
Dude, that's what you're on about? It's just a crappy scan of a typewritten page.

I think you've been reading too many threads at the LC forum.

[chipmunk stew]

Dude, that's what you're on about? It's just a crappy scan of a typewritten page.

I think you've been reading too many threads at the LC forum.
A crappy scan of a crappy photocopy of a typewritten page.

If you wanted to fake something like this, what would you do: try to recreate a typewritten page using a computer, or track down an old typewriter on Ebay?

[Bronze Dog]

I sometimes end up reading copies of copies of copies of copies of documents from the 1910s. It's amazing what can happen, and this is for documents that get pressed flat in the archives. I can only imagine what happens when you throw in crinkly sheets.

I'm getting to be a master of the "Is that a 5 or a 3?" game. Still need to work on my "Is that a 6 or an 8?"

[geni]

This picture will show you what I am talking about, it is like they pulled the intire word to the left, http://chainsawsanders.com/NorthwoodsbadphotoshopL.jpg

only you would have to change the keys on the typewriter to do it, it is easy to see in the printed copy that I have.

It looks like someone is trying to make a printed document look type written.

Could well be a scanner artifact.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Could well be a scanner artifact.

I thought about all those, but it occurs about 50 times and never in just one or two letters in a word only in whole words. All the letters in the word are slanted slightly left , I saw a similar effect in old photo editing software.
The only expert that I know checked this out was the guy who wrote the book.
The government was supposed to have released the document, what if no one has actually checked it out?
It could actually be a scanner effect I am just curious to know if someone actually looked into this?

PS if I wanted to fake a type written page I would cut and paste actual words from a type written document onto a page on a computer, then photo copy it, and find a photo copy not the original Document in a government archive and have it documented.
Once documented to come from the Achieve it would not be questioned.
Is there even an oridginal document anywhere?

[Shrinker]

PS if I wanted to fake a type written page I would cut and paste actual words from a type written document onto a page on a computer, then photo copy it, and find a photo copy not the original Document in a government archive and have it documented.

And what part of this process would cause the words on some lines to appear slanted?

[StoneWT]

What if? What if? What if? :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

This all seems like a wild goose chase to me.

[chipmunk stew]

Is there even an oridginal document anywhere?
Who knows? You usually get copies with FOIA requests.

Is this a fake, too?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/512244f8c5b43cfd0.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1257)

[Yoink]

I've seen letters get more compressed and distorted than that on a modern single generation photocopy. Photocopiers are temperamental beasts at the best of times, as are scanners. Do we know what the "original" of this scan was? Was it a typewritten document or a carbon copy? Or a mimeograph or such like multiple? Is it perhaps pulled up from a microfiche?

Without knowledge of all the steps this thing has gone through from typewriter to screen, the analyses you're trying to do are simply meaningless.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I've seen letters get more compressed and distorted than that on a modern single generation photocopy. Photocopiers are temperamental beasts at the best of times, as are scanners. Do we know what the "original" of this scan was? Was it a typewritten document or a carbon copy? Or a mimeograph or such like multiple? Is it perhaps pulled up from a microfiche?

Without knowledge of all the steps this thing has gone through from typewriter to screen, the analyses you're trying to do are simply meaningless.


Exactly How do we know that the document was not faked much like others that have been found?
From the time in question it would have to be a Type written, or Auto type document.
If it were say one word that had an abnormality in the middle, I would agree, but the words are all slanted the exact same amount.
That would require the exact same slant between all the pages at the same time.

[chipmunk stew]

Exactly How do we know that the document was not faked much like others that have been found?
From the time in question it would have to be a Type written, or Auto type document.
If it were say one word that had an abnormality in the middle, I would agree, but the words are all slanted the exact same amount.
That would require the exact same slant between all the pages at the same time.
You're chasing ghosts.

[Gravy]

It looks like someone is trying to make a printed document look type written.
Having spent several years as an executive in the printing business, I'd say that if your statement is true, they succeeded.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Sorry I can not duplicate the effect on my current windows, it always auto straitened the letters, but I have pictures around here somewhere that have the exact same tilt effect from my old windows 95 Pentium one, photo editing programs where I pasted cut and dragged them to the spots on the photos.
By now those programs are ancient history.
Sorry for wasting your time, I merely thought that it was an inconsistency in the documents It may in fact be a scanning error.
I am probably just over analyzing the situation, that is the difference between a cter and an honest investigation you admit when you are wrong.

[CurtC]

Exactly How do we know that the document was not faked much like others that have been found?
I see you've backed off (somewhat) now, but I'd just like to point out that there would be no purpose in their going through all these gyrations in order to make a document appear like it came off a typewriter.

If they wanted to fake a document from 1961, it would be easy to get an old typewriter, type up the pages, make a few generations of photocopies, and release that.

In your scenario, someone would have to use a modern computer program to intentionally slant the letters backwards, in order to, uh, what exactly? In order to make it look like it didn't come off an old typewriter? That just makes no sense.

If you have some reason to suspect fakery, look into those reasons, but this document is not evidence of fakery. I wish it had been faked so we wouldn't have to hear the CTers drone about it (and then ask why ON supports their case when it was not similar to 9/11).

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I see you've backed off (somewhat) now, but I'd just like to point out that there would be no purpose in their going through all these gyrations in order to make a document appear like it came off a typewriter.

If they wanted to fake a document from 1961, it would be easy to get an old typewriter, type up the pages, make a few generations of photocopies, and release that.

In your scenario, someone would have to use a modern computer program to intentionally slant the letters backwards, in order to, uh, what exactly? In order to make it look like it didn't come off an old typewriter? That just makes no sense.

If you have some reason to suspect fakery, look into those reasons, but this document is not evidence of fakery. I wish it had been faked so we wouldn't have to hear the CTers drone about it (and then ask why ON supports their case when it was not similar to 9/11).

Since Auto Type machines from the 1960s only exists in museums today and the defense department used mostly auto types to do documents,http://www.officemuseum.com/typewriters_office_special.htm so they could easily have extra copies, where would you find one?
The only way you could fake an auto typed document today is by cut and paste. Plus you would need to cut and paste the signatures from real documents the seals, and other important parts.
It is not just a mater of making the documents look type written they have to be prepared on the same machines, that were used in the 1950-1960s.
It is kinda like a counterfeiter,making a 20 dollar bill on a photo copier if he does not get it right everyone knows it is counterfeit.

[CurtC]

Since Auto Type machines from the 1960s only exists in museums today and the defense department used mostly auto types to do documents,http://www.officemuseum.com/typewriters_office_special.htm so they could easily have extra copies, where would you find one?
What is an Auto Type machine, and why do you think this document was done with one? I've spent many an hour slouched over a traditional typewriter, and this document looks like what they would produce, then with a crappy scan.

I don't get why you're introducing the complication of an Auto Type machine.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I see you've backed off (somewhat) now, but I'd just like to point out that there would be no purpose in their going through all these gyrations in order to make a document appear like it came off a typewriter.

If they wanted to fake a document from 1961, it would be easy to get an old typewriter, type up the pages, make a few generations of photocopies, and release that.

In your scenario, someone would have to use a modern computer program to intentionally slant the letters backwards, in order to, uh, what exactly? In order to make it look like it didn't come off an old typewriter? That just makes no sense.

If you have some reason to suspect fakery, look into those reasons, but this document is not evidence of fakery. I wish it had been faked so we wouldn't have to hear the CTers drone about it (and then ask why ON supports their case when it was not similar to 9/11).

Yes you could find an old type writer, but not an auto type machine not unless you worked in a Museum, that had one.
http://www.officemuseum.com/typewriters_office_special.htm

The DOD, at that time used them to prepare documents, that way they would be easier to copy. If you wanted to fake a DOD Document and make it look authentic, you would have cut and paste it on a computer, or find an auto type.
The old Photo editing program I had allowed you to drag the photo with the mouse, but you had to Aline it with the page yourself I could never get it strait, it was always slanted left or right.
That problem has been corrected in all the newer photo editing programs, thank providence and Photo shop for that.

[Bandersnatch]

What's the difference between a regular type writer and a Auto-Typist? How noticable is the difference?

[StoneWT]

Is there any point in continuing to discuss this nonissue? :confused:

[CurtC]

Yes you could find an old type writer, but not an auto type machine not unless you worked in a Museum, that had one.
http://www.officemuseum.com/typewriters_office_special.htm

Yes, an Auto Type machine may be hard to find, but what does that have to do with the Operation Northwoods document? It looks to me like it was done on a typewriter. Is there some reason that you think the ON document was done on an Auto Type machine?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes, an Auto Type machine may be hard to find, but what does that have to do with the Operation Northwoods document? It looks to me like it was done on a typewriter. Is there some reason that you think the ON document was done on an Auto Type machine?

The auto type fonts are different slightly smaller I believe, at the time the standard procedure was to prepare a roughed draft, then make the punch card for the auto type from that and make the copies needed to give the Join chiefs each an exact copy.
The early computers were used much in the same way.
The only other way of making copies was multiple typist which was probably not used on sensitive documents because of the likelihood of leaks.
That is the main reason the DOD switched to auto types one person prepared all the Documents needed so if they leaked them they could be detected and fired!
Auto types replace the multiple typist the Pentagon and DOD employed to copy documents in the early 1900s.
Almost all the DOD Documents are auto type.
The only way to really find out would be a comparison of document from the time by the DOD.
Auto typists were type writers with keys controlled by punch cards so the Documents would look type written. However many had fonts not used on type writers, smaller to save on paper & Ink, cutting down the expense of form letters.

[Foolmewunz]

I don't know that you need to break into the Smithsonian, Crazy. Why not go to E-bay? Right now, for $.01, you'd be the winning bid.:D

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-IBM-Mag-Card-II-Typewriter_W0QQitemZ290023724164QQihZ019QQcategory Z74946QQcmdZViewItem

The magnetic tape and mag card typewriters were introduced in the 60's. I think the punch-card variations were petering out, so it's much more likely that they used Mag(card or tape). This is a later model, but they're available from time to time. There's a big market out there for esoteric typewriting equipment, and if this was hard to find the bid would be rather high by now.

I think the NWO could find one quite easily, so there goes the "impossible to get" portion of the theory. So? Let's return to the underlying concern that I have. Why would anyone make a word processor forgery when the original equipment is readily available.

All of my buddies at the disinformation wing know that the first thing skeptics look for is a discrepancy between the era the forgery is supposed to be coming from and the materials used. The greatest art forgeries of all time have taken that into consideration. They clean off a canvas from the correct era and then even go to the extent of mixing their own pigments and lacquers. For a forger, this one would've been a slam-dunk.