This is so believable it is downright creepy.
Gee, without the internet, how do you suppose this would have played out?
The only hole in your theory is, why didn't the forger at least use the courier font? Aren't these guys pros? 8^>
"This is so believable it is downright creepy.
Gee, without the internet, how do you suppose this would have played out?
The only hole in your theory is, why didn't the forger at least use the courier font? Aren't these guys pros? 8^>"
You have interesting questions.
I remember in the old days of watching network news, they would 'show' a document with some line highlighted, and get on with the story. The 'mistake' CBS made was to make the documents available on the web. In this global information age, and with a 100000 'human database' at Free Republic, there would have been someone who immediately would have caught on to the forgeries. Their 2nd mistake was to sneer at the combined intelligence of serious FReepers and bloggers. That really unleashed the energy to delve deeper in these docs. But to answer your question, in the old days they would have gotten away with it. We (the viewing public) trusted and believed the network news commentators. Dan Rather has now betrayed the trust of all his viewers, IMHO.
Are the forgers pros? My gut feel is no. They're bunglers, like the Watergate bunch. CBS fished around for the docs and they manufactured them based on what CBS was asking for. But the forgers misused military formats, confused army terminology for air force terminology, and produced half-baked memos from memory. CBS turned a blind eye because they wanted the scoop so badly. Rather wanted to contribute to 'Operation Fortunate Son' and be the cause of bringing down a sitting President in a time of war. I think he still wants this as his legacy.