[SimeyTheLimey]

Also: the Washington Post has weighed in. They have the widow of the alleged writer saying her husband didn't write them, and this section on the typographical defects:

After doubts about the documents began circulating on the Internet yesterday morning, The Post contacted several independent experts who said they appeared to have been generated by a word processor. An examination of the documents by The Post shows that they are formatted differently from other Texas Air National Guard documents whose authenticity is not questioned.

William Flynn, a forensic document specialist with 35 years of experience in police crime labs and private practice, said the CBS documents raise suspicions because of their use of proportional spacing techniques. Documents generated by the kind of typewriters that were widely used in 1972 space letters evenly across the page, so that an "i" uses as much space as an "m." In the CBS documents, by contrast, each letter uses a different amount of space.

While IBM had introduced an electric typewriter that used proportional spacing by the early 1970s, it was not widely used in government. In addition, Flynn said, the CBS documents appear to use proportional spacing both across and down the page, a relatively recent innovation. Other anomalies in the documents include the use of the superscripted letters "th" in phrases such as 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Bush's unit.

"It would be nearly impossible for all this technology to have existed at that time," said Flynn, who runs a document-authentication company in Phoenix.

Other experts largely concurred. Phil Bouffard, a forensic document examiner from Cleveland, said the font used in the CBS documents appeared to be Times Roman, which is widely used by word-processing programs but was not common on typewriters.

(emphasis added)

Also to correct one comment raised earlier. The White House didn't supply the documents. They forwarded documents that they were given by CBS.

On Wednesday evening, the White House e-mailed reporters copies of the documents, as supplied by CBS,

So while the White House hasn't disputed the authenticity of the documents, they didn't initially produce them. That then still raises the question of exactly who did produce them? The family is saying it wasn't them, but CBS says this came from private files.

[Cody Dawg]

"He said that she said that he said that they said that we said that he said that no one said that they said that someone said that he said that she said that all of them said that one of them said that no one said..."

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
"He said that she said that he said that they said that we said that he said that no one said that they said that someone said that he said that she said that all of them said that one of them said that no one said..."

roflmao

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The country didn't "need" anyone to fight the unjust war that Vietnam was. Still, to play your game, Kerry ran away even after serving in the most luxurios capacity he could.

Are you intentionally reversing the 'labels' attributed to each candidate?

You (rightly) call the war in Viet Nam, "unjust." So did Kerry!

You say Kerry "ran away" after a cushy military assignment, when, actually, it was Bushy who did that.

What is it: sarcasm, confusion or "Miller Time?"

[SimeyTheLimey]

I don't know this blog, I just surfed over to it. But it has some interesting information about how the Air Force formatted its document at the time - things like the use of letterhead, rank abbreviations, and signature blocks. It's worth looking at if any still has any question that these documents are forgeries.

I won't comment on the Spectator's story that the documents originally came from the Kerry campaign. I haven't read that story yet because their server seems to be swamped.

[argod]

Also from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer following quotes support the documents

A senior CBS official, who asked not to be named because CBS managers did not want to go beyond their official statement, named one of the network's sources as retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, the immediate superior of the documents' alleged author, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. He said a CBS reporter read the documents to Hodges over the phone and Hodges replied that "these are the things that Killian had expressed to me at the time."
.
.
.

The official said the network regarded Hodges's comments as "the trump card" on the question of authenticity, as he is a Republican who acknowledged that he did not want to hurt Bush. Hodges, who declined to grant an on-camera interview to CBS, did not respond to messages left on his home answering machine in Texas.

[RAILhead]

Persoanlly, I think I'm smelling MoveOn.org's involvement...

Maury

[Joshua]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know this blog, I just surfed over to it. But it has some interesting information about how the Air Force formatted its document at the time - things like the use of letterhead, rank abbreviations, and signature blocks. It's worth looking at if any still has any question that these documents are forgeries.

I won't comment on the Spectator's story that the documents originally came from the Kerry campaign. I haven't read that story yet because their server seems to be swamped.

There's a cached version of the Spectator story here.

Glenn Reynolds has a good round up of all the "impotent bitching."

[Zimphire]

If this link was posted before I apologize.

http://drudgereport.com/cbsd.htm#top

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
CBS needs to come clean on where they got them, and they need to produce the originals so they can be independently tested. There are too many questions.

Agreed. I also agree that an independent examination is needed.

And just to reiterate, the superscript issue isn't that typewriters of the era couldn't raise text, it is that they couldn't automatically reduce the size of the reduced text. Microsoft Word does that automatically.

It's moot if the typewriter has a "th" character specifically for the purpose. Such a character would always be "raised and little." Basically, there are four alternate explanations that must be examined:

• Was there a font ball with a curly apostrophe and a "th" character?
• Did the Colonel personally own a machine capable of producing the memo?
• Did the Colonel's office own a machine capable of producing the memo, and does he have a patter of using (or having an underling use) such a machine?
• Would the source have reproduced the memo with a word processor instead of a photocopier? If so, why, and can the original be released?

The NYT piece suggests that the third is possible by pointing to 'th' characters in records that the White House itself released. I wish I knew which document, so I could verify, but that's where we stand at present.

Edit: I just saw this on ABC News Not only does the family of the (conveniently dead) author say that he didn't type, but also:

Already raised in the NYT piece, although the NYT didn't mention the widow, they certainly mentioned the son.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If this link was posted before I apologize.

http://drudgereport.com/cbsd.htm#top

WOW!

[Zimphire]

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php

90% sure it's fake.

Boy the left really took this one by the hook.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php

90% sure it's fake.

Boy the left really took this one by the hook.

Bad thing is...the damage is already done. I wonder how much of a news story this will be.

What gets me...this is a major media outlet with resources that rival a 3rd world nation. They should have known. This is irresponsible and HIGHLY suspect.

[Zimphire]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...9/202100.shtml

Ben Barnes' 'Daughter': My Dad Lied About Bush

A woman purporting to be Amy Barnes, daughter of former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, said Thursday that her father had fabricated claims that he used his influence to get President Bush into the Texas Air National Guard 36 years ago.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Bad thing is...the damage is already done.

I think W wont look like the ass in this they were wanting him to be. I think it backfired.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...9/202100.shtml

Ben Barnes' 'Daughter': My Dad Lied About Bush

A woman purporting to be Amy Barnes, daughter of former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, said Thursday that her father had fabricated claims that he used his influence to get President Bush into the Texas Air National Guard 36 years ago.

I have been hearing about this. How can a person now claim that he got Bush into the National Guard by pulling strings as Lieutenant Governor when Bush joined the National Guard in 1968, the year before by became Lieutenant Governor. Are there time warps in Texas?

[Spliffdaddy]

It's like a whole other country.

[Cody Dawg]

LOL, Spliff!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have been hearing about this. How can a person now claim that he got Bush into the National Guard by pulling strings as Lieutenant Governor when Bush joined the National Guard in 1968, the year before by became Lieutenant Governor. Are there time warps in Texas?

This has to be your weakest attempt at discrediting the story yet. From the Globe article linked on the first page of this thread:

[...]
The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a Bush family friend.
[...]

You don't get to be the Texas Lt. Governor out of nowhere - generally you have to already have some kind of political connections a year or more in advance. As speaker of the house, and future Lt. Governor, I don't doubt that Barnes has sufficient connections to pull it off.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Black has decided to go down with the ship.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You don't get to be the Texas Lt. Governor out of nowhere - generally you have to already have some kind of political connections a year or more in advance. As speaker of the house, and future Lt. Governor, I don't doubt that Barnes has sufficient connections to pull it off.

BlackGriffen

That's fair enough. I didn't know he was speaker of the house. Of course, he is also a major Kerry contributor to the tune of (I beleive) $500,000. If we were to do a New York Times "Web of Connections" chart it wouldn't be complicated.

However, I suppose even a Kerry partisan could be telling the truth. It's just a bit suspicious in the light of the fact that the rest of it seems to be fiction.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Black has decided to go down with the ship.

all good men do.

Maybe he will resurface with a better attitude and a vote for President Bush

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's fair enough. I didn't know he was speaker of the house. Of course, he is also a major Kerry contributor to the tune of (I beleive) $500,000. If we were to do a New York Times "Web of Connections" chart it wouldn't be complicated.

However, I suppose even a Kerry partisan could be telling the truth. It's just a bit suspicious in the light of the fact that the rest of it seems to be fiction.

Your last assertion is not what it seems to be. First, nobody has addressed the article from the Boston Globe which relies only on documents that came from the White House. If any of those are forged, we know exactly who the forger is. Second, the forgery case is not as bullet proof as the Bush addled brains of your primary sources would like to believe. A little biased link of my own states:

First Claim (LittleGreenFootballs): "The documents can be recreated in Microsoft Word".

What the LGFer did to "prove" this was to type a Microsoft Word document in Times New Roman font, and overlay it with the original document. _As he says:

Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word's defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings.

We're going to make this simple.

First, of course, in order to do this, he first had to reduce the document so that the margins were the same, since the original PDF distributed by CBS is quite a bit larger. _Then he superimposed the two documents, such that the margins on all sides lined up.

What he then discovered is that Times New Roman typeface is, when viewed on a computer monitor, really, really similar to Times New Roman typeface. _Or rather, really really similar to a typeface that is similar to Times New Roman typeface.

Um, OK then.

You see, a "typeface" doesn't just consist of the shape of the letters. _It also is a set of rules about the size of the letters in different point sizes, the width of those letters, and the spacing between them. _These are all designed in as part of the font, by the designer. _Since Microsoft Word was designed to include popular and very-long-used typefaces, it is hardly a surprise that those typefaces, in Microsoft Word, would look similar to, er, themselves, on a typewriter or other publishing device. _That's the point of typefaces; to have a uniform look across all publishing devices. _To look the same. _You could use the same typeface in, for example, OpenOffice, and if it's the same font, surprise-surprise, it will look the same.

So kudos on discovering fonts, freeper guy.

Next, however: do they really match up? _Well, no. _They don't.

If you shrink each document to be approximately 400-500 pixels across, they do indeed look strikingly similar. _But that is because you are compressing the information they contain to 400-500 pixels across. _At that size, subtle differences in typeface or letter placement simply cannot be detected; the "pixels" are too big. _If you compare the two documents at a larger size, the differences between them are much more striking.

For instance: _In the original CBS document, some letters "float" above or below the baseline. _For example, in the original document, lowercase 'e' is very frequently -- but not always -- above the baseline. _Look at the word "interference", or even "me". _Typewriters do this; computers don't. _Granted, if you are comparing a lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high with another lowercase 'e' that is only 10 or 12 pixels high, you're not going to see such subtleties. _That doesn't prove the differences aren't there; it just proves you're an idiot, for making them each 12 pixels high and then saying "see, they almost match!"

"This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s."

There are several problems with this theory. _First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. _Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.

And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. _It's close. _But it's not a match.

For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. _The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.

So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. _At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.

"Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters"

That one was easy. _Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. _This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.

"This document uses proportional spacing, which didn't exist in the early 1970s."

Turns out, it did. _The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. _An example of its output is here. _It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.

"OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one."

No, again. _The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. _There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: _the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. _The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. _The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.

(Note: However, it is not immediately clear that the Selectrics and Selectric IIs could not in fact emulate "proportional" spacing. _There is skepticism in some circles that these memos really show "proportional" spacing. _Looking at the blowups, it appears pretty obvious to me that there is, but still researching.)

Did they have a font that looked like Times New Roman? _Unclear; they apparently were manufactured in a range of configurations, and with different available typefaces. _Note that these were not "typeball" machines, like the Selectrics; they had a normal row of keys. _But it is worth noting that IBM had what we will call a "close" relationship with Times New Roman:

Courier was originally designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler for the revolutionary "golfball" typing head technology IBM was then developing for its electric typewriters. (The first typewriter to use the technology was the IBM Selectric Typewriter that debuted in 1961.) Adrian Frutiger had nothing to do with the design, though IBM hired him in the late 1960s to design a version of his Univers typeface for the Selectric. In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices. Consequently, when Apple introduced its first Macintosh computer in 1984 it anachronistically included Courier among its core fonts. In the early 1990s Microsoft, locked in a font format battle with Adobe, hired Monotype Typography to design a series of core fonts for Windows 3.1, many of which were intended to mirror those in the Apple core font group. Thus, New Courier--lighter and crisper than Courier--was born. (In alphabetized screen menus font names are often rearranged for easier access so now we have Courier New MT in which the MT stands for Monotype Typography.)

Courier's vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)

So, as you can see, both IBM and Microsoft specifically obtained the typeface "Times New Roman" from the designers of that font; neither was the creator of it. _And, as we said before, typeface includes not just the "shape" of the letters, but the size and spacing between those letters.

One of the differences between the Times New Roman as implemented on the IBM machines, as opposed to Microsoft Word? _The IBM machines apparently had the alternative '4' character that matched these memos, while Microsoft Word's TNR does not.

Oops.

Now, would the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron have extravagantly purchased typewriters that contained the th superscript key? _Would the military want or require typewriters with the 'th', 'nd', and 'rd' characters? _Hmm. _Ponder, Ponder. _What would the 111th need with a th character... I'll leave that to the enterprising among you to deduce.

This is not the final word on this, and it is certainly possible that any documents are forgeries. _But the principle argument of the freepers -- that it would be impossible for a TANG office in 1972 to produce documents that look like these -- is simply false. _Within a few days, however, we should know for sure either way; these typewriters still have a following, and type samples should be forthcoming.

There's a little more if you look at the link, but I'm sick of recreating the bolds and italics, and using italics to simulate quotes.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Your last assertion is not what it seems to be. First, nobody has addressed the article from the Boston Globe which relies only on documents that came from the White House.

My understanding from several of the articles that have appeared today (e.g. the Washington Post article) is that the White House passed on the documents that they were given by CBS. CBS is still original the source for all of this, not the White House.

I know that the preferred explanation is that Rove somehow planted the forged documents to embarrass the Democrats, but that really is clutching at straws. The fact is that CBS, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Boston Globe all ran with a story based on forged documents. The burden is on them to prove they are not forgeries. They would do better to start doing that rather than pointing the finger at the White House to explain away their own incompetance.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My understanding from several of the articles that have appeared today (e.g. the Washington Post article) is that the White House passed on the documents that they were given by CBS. CBS is still the source for all of this, not the White House.

Read the Globe article again - all they did was thoroughly go over the documents released by the White House, I believe in February.

BlackGriffen

Edit: Here, I'll make it easier. From the first paragraph of the article I quoted in the first post in this thread:

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows:[...]

[zigzag]

You mean some people here seriously believe that Bush got into the Guard on the merits? That with no ROTC or flying experience and the lowest passing score on the pilot exam, you can leapfrog a long waiting list and get into the "Champagne Unit" with the sons of other prominent politicians, all because you're a swell guy? Whose father happens to be the U.S. Congressman from that very district? Please. Let's give Bush credit for the time he put in, but let's not play pretend as to how and why he got there.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I know that the preferred explanation is that Rove somehow planted the forged documents to embarrass the Democrats, but that really is clutching at straws.

Good thing neither I nor the source I linked in the DailyKos claimed such.

Try again.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Read the Globe article again - all they did was thoroughly go over the documents released by the White House, I believe in February.

BlackGriffen

Edit: Here, I'll make it easier. From the first paragraph of the article I quoted in the first post in this thread:

Right. CBS gave documents to the White House. The White House dutifully passed them on to other news outlets who requested them. That's how they were "obtained from the White House."

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Right. CBS gave documents to the White House. The White House dutifully passed them on to other news outlets who requested them. That's how they were "obtained from the White House."

The CBS documents weren't passed to the White House in February. The Globe documents are from February, the CBS documents are more recent.

So, reread, and try again.

BlackGriffen

Edit: Here, I'll even bold the important bits:

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows:[...]

Given the simplicity of this, I have to ask, are you being obtuse on purpose? I know that you're smarter than this, Simey.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Panic has clearly set in. So it must be a Rovian plot.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Panic has clearly set in. So it must be a Rovian plot.

You're the first one to bring up Rove, as far as I can see. So please, quit being obtuse, and address the points raised here, or raise some of your own.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You're the first one to bring up Rove, as far as I can see. So please, quit being obtuse, and address the points raised here, or raise some of your own.

BlackGriffen

I already have, far more than you. Several news outlets ran with a story that has fallen apart. Some of them (e.g. the Washington Post) are already backpeddling and distancing themselves from it. The ones who invested the most in the story haven't yet admitted it, but in time I imagine they will. Meanwhile, suggesting that the White House forged smoking gun documents damaging to the president's reelection is just absurd. This is a media scandal demonstrating, at the minimum, incredible incompetance. If the trail leads to a campaign (no proof that it will), it isn't hard to figure out it is probably not the campaign of the candidate these forged documents were designed to smear.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I already have, far more than you. Several news outlets ran with a story that has fallen apart.

If you'll notice, I provided an analysis that rebuts the charges that have supposedly made the story fall apart. You have completely failed to address the rebuttal, and instead go off on some wild tangent about Rove.

The ones who invested the most in the story haven't yet admitted it, but in time I imagine they will.

Keep dreaming, because from where I stand things aren't so clear.

Meanwhile, suggesting that the White House forged smoking gun documents damaging to the president's reelection is just absurd.

No shit. I was being sarcastic about the possibility that the documents that the Globe used in the article I linked in post #1 of this thread were forged. You are apparently incapable of recognizing sarcasm, though, or are intentionally taking a sarcastic remark seriously to derail the thread and be an @ss.

I'm beginning to wonder if strings were pulled to get you into law school, Simey. Unless you plan on going into politics soon after, in which case you'll fit right in.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'm beginning to wonder if strings were pulled to get you into law school, Simey.

Nice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

By the way, Chris Lehane on Nightline last night suggested that the White House may have forged the documents. Lehane is with the Kerry campaign. So there is your accusation (ridiculous though it is).

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nice.

Isn't it, though? When I feel that you're wasting my time, I try to return the favor in some small way.

I only started questioning your intelligence after you showed blatant obtuseness for several posts. You can easily prove me wrong, and I'll stop questioning your intelligence, if you address the issues raised instead of the ones you wish were raised.

BlackGriffen

Edit: grammar (I hope I got it right this time)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By the way, Chris Lehane on Nightline last night suggested that the White House may have forged the documents. Lehane is with the Kerry campaign. So there is your accusation (ridiculous though it is).

I'm not surprised that some lefty made the accusation, though I'm a little surprised someone associated with the Kerry campaign would.

At any rate, it is irrelevant to anything I was saying.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By the way, Chris Lehane on Nightline last night suggested that the White House may have forged the documents. Lehane is with the Kerry campaign. So there is your accusation (ridiculous though it is).

LAAWL! Bush did it to make Kerry look bad!


You got to be kidding me...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

I'm beginning to wonder if strings were pulled to get you into law school, Simey.

Nice cheap shot. But then, that's what I've come to expect from you. Was it neccessary?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nice cheap shot. But then, that's what I've come to expect from you.

Pretty clever if you ask me. Not taking any sides, but it was funny!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nice cheap shot. But then, that's what I've come to expect from you. Was it neccessary?

I probably didn't have to go that far, but I was trying to shame Simey out of the obtuse act.

At least, I hope it's an act.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I only started questioning your intelligence after you showed blatant obtuseness for several posts. You can easily prove me wrong, and I'll stop questioning your intelligence, if you address the issues raised instead of the ones you wish were raised.

I'm quite secure about my intelligence, thank you.

[BlackGriffen]

For some levity, here is a document that was definitely forged (courtesy of DailyKos):


BG

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm quite secure about my intelligence, thank you.

I'll leave it at that in the hopes that you'll actually address the rebuttals I raised.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'll leave it at that in the hopes that you'll actually address the rebuttals I raised.

BlackGriffen

Nope. I'm satisfied that the documents are probably forgeries. It's up to the media to defend their stories and prove that the documents are genuine.

[Zimphire]

+1 before the ship sinks.

[dcolton]

CBS ios NOT investigating the issue.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml

In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

As a matter of fact, it seems as if they are strenghthed their attack.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nope. I'm satisfied that the documents are probably forgeries. It's up to the media to defend their stories and prove that the documents are genuine.

I guess I'll have to rethink the tactic of attempting to shame people away from distraction tactics - used intentionally or unintentionally - it doesn't appear to be effective.

That said, the link I provided addresses every point except for: the letterhead issue, and the denials of the family of the deceased.

It also appears, thank you dcolton, that CBS, contrary to your expectation, is not backing off at all.

Please note that every reputable source you linked counter was nothing more than a rehash of the info you obtained through more biased sources. In other words, I give them no more credit than I give the biased primary sources.

So, again, I think that the question is still open either way. I honestly don't think it will be resolved until: CBS's source comes forward and/or they open the originals to independent inspection (or at least cite their independent examiners).

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
So, again, I think that the question is still open either way. I honestly don't think it will be resolved until: CBS's source comes forward and/or they open the originals to independent inspection (or at least cite their independent examiners).

BlackGriffen

The issue is still open, which puts the burden on CBS. Unfortunately, as I mentioned this morning, I don't expect them to exactly rush to admit that they are incompetant. At the very least, they will wait several weeks so that they can sneak their mea culpa out by the back door. Coming clean when people are still paying attention would be out of character.

But -- they may not have any choice. Whether they like it or not, they are now the story.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dcolton:
CBS ios NOT investigating the issue.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml



As a matter of fact, it seems as if they are strenghthed their attack.

"When you can't make it to the bathroom, just sh!t where you are and be proud of it." - Robin Williams