Folks,
We are helping Rather. He's going public saying things like "we have shown the documents indeed *could* have been created in 1972, that the criticism that they are impossible is wrong."
THAT is not the correct configuration. That is reversing the burden of proof. Journalists are obligated to do the necessary research to ensure that the documents MUST have been from 1972, not could have been. They are supposed to have proven a priori that the documents absolutely and unequivocally MUST be genuine before airing them. Not just ask around and find someone to say they might be.
This is pathetic. All the work Freepers are doing looking to find "impossibilities" is not well directed. What should be happening is demonstrating that it is far more probable that they are forged than that they are not. If you do that Rather's defense of "could have been" falls apart. Go for probabilities, not possibilities. Make him address probabilities, not possibilities.
Bingo.
THANK YOU!
IT IS TIME FOR PROSECUTION - send a complaint the FCC and request the Congressman Fred Upton subpoena Rather and the docs for the Subcommittee on Communications and Internet.
Provide copies of your complaint to your local CBS affiliate, Viacom management, etc.; investors and local stations can't afford another shot like they took over Janet Jackson and this one is indefensible and totally on their own heads (they can't blame a wardrobe malfunction for this one)
Yep. I watched CBS News tonight for the first time in at least 20 years just for the express purpose of seeing if the network at decided yet to come clean. Instead, CBS presented two nerd types who claimed that indeed the documents "could have been" produced in 1972. When it was over, all I could do was shake my head in wonderment and disgust and switch back to Fox where the roundtable was discussing.... the CBS forged documents.
By the way, I noticed that the CBS Newscast itself seemed stuck in 1972. The production qualities were lame and dated, and Rather's delivery was stiffer than I even remembered it. It's like nothing has changed there in decades. That is one poor news show.
We keep hearing about Occam's Razor, over and over. What is the POSSIBILITY that Rather could be correct (only if a large number of random suppositions came together at one instant) versus the possibility that these documents, fitting the Photoshop overlay, are forged. In a hypothesis one must assume the simplest answer is the correct answer, and then refute it.
The only thing that matters is WHAT HAPPENED - the Photoshop overlay proves it - stop letting Rather frame the argument.
FOCUS ON THE OVERLAY!!!