Posted on 09/15/2005 2:26:16 PM PDT by antaresequity
Edited on 09/15/2005 2:35:33 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
First off the handwriting isn't Bush's...
Look at the first image and compare the 'I'..it appears as if the lower writing is indeed his, but
not the crap about the bathroom break...
Further...when the image is enhanced and sharpened...you can begin to see the blocks of cut and
paste graphics, and their obviosu demarcations...The lower image has been sharpened in fireworks by
three or four degrees...you can see clearly square demarcations around the supposed text..
You offer yours first.
I just looked at your posts on this thread; you've been wrong on almost every point; and I'm not the only one who has noticed.
They photoshopped it.
it is not an original.
ever hear of logic?
I don't need to show my handwriting credentials; I am not the one alleging fraud. Given that there are entirely reasonable explanations for the content of the note itself, the burden is on you crackpots to prove its an actual fraud.
Secondly, what exactly has been proven wrong about my posts?
This was discussed last night on another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484660/posts
I don't want the job; but anybody who knows anything about Bush and that Sharpie pen knows he never uses anything else.
I have several letters from him and they are all in Sharpie and all in script; and yes, they are on official White House paper.
What are they going to do next? Maybe they will sneak in the Urinal, or when he is having a colonoscopy hide under the gurney and watch them place the device. They are filthy and disgusting enough. Me thinks they have a fixation on The President and Bathrooms. If this is fake, they are real sicko's.
Yes, I'm quite aware of logic, and it's clear you're deficient in it.
The press photoshops photos ALL the time in order to correct for bulk quality issues such as exposure or color balance. And that is exactly what Reuters has said was done in this case. They expressly deny altering the contents of the photo.
So until you come up with some decent evidence, you're SOL as far as logic goes.
You said it was Condi's writing; it was clearly Photoshoped.
Stop now while you still have some credibility left.
Hang on for about 2 more minutes. Nevermind, the jiffypop is done. Carry on.
Like I said, it's bogus.
Wow, you need to take a logic course: in what way does the latter contradict the former?
I do not deny that it was Photoshopped. But "Photoshopp" is not synonymous with "forgery." Read the friggin article: the photo was adjusted for exposure. They expressly deny altering the content of the photo. So unless you actually have EVIDENCE that they did just that, you're spouting baseless conspiracy theories.
True.. But remember the heat Bush One got from the MSM for simply looking at his watch during a debate? It is the equivalent of farting of holding your nose while pointing to the guy next to you after you have dropped a bomb.
Nonsense. You have no evidence that the image is not an accurate depiction of the note. ZERO. What Reuters did to the photo is no more deleterious than what your local Walmart 1-Hour Photo does when it receives a roll of your 35mm film. Or is every photo of your family "bogus" too?
"I don't want the job"
You and apparently all the rest of the non-FR world....
Congrats on the letters, BTW. (must not be envious, must not be envious, LOL)
My preferred euphimism is "pinch a loaf" :)
Riiiiiiiight.
The fact that it might be fake did not stop CNN from doing a 4 minute segment about it. During that segment they never mentioned the idea that the photo may be a fake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.