[Bonaparte]

"...but doing amateur forensics is unfruitful and makes us look quite silly."

And how silly do the "professional" forensics of CBS' "experts" make them look?

Unfruitful? I don't think so. It's what we do at Free Republic, namely, rapid response and dissemination to the media. If people like us did not put this kind of attention on developments like this, people like Dan Rather would have a much easier time pulling off these deceptions. IMO, what we do is quite productive.

" The self-congratulations about superimposing the fonts from two pictures are baseless, as you have agreed, because they are different fonts."

Not by much and I believe the small difference can be accounted for. What is significant here is the stunningly close correspondence between the two, as well as the features evident in the original that did not exist on ANG docs of that sort in the early 70s.

"Even if the memos WERE authentic, the content is meaningless and undamaging."

Really? So if the TV viewing public, which knows nothing about ANG practices, perceives what CBS wants them to perceive about Bush's "dereliction of duty," that's not damaging? If they perceive that Lt Col Killian was dissatisfied with Bush's performance in the ANG, that's not damaging?

[Capricam]

Thank God (and Al) for the internet and thank GOD for Free Republic and a couple of other conserative websites that I value!

[Technical Editor]

Perhaps you are right; perhaps allowing the White House to be the only one refuting this isn't sufficient.

I just really think that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude fraud, though.

I also would prefer to hear an IBM expert weigh in on the font issue.

But perhaps I am just too inexperienced in the ways of FR. That could be it.

I'm all for screaming "fraud," but I think I'd like to base such a cry on truly expert opinion, not my own.

I don't mean to insult anyone; I think you realize that by now. At least I hope so.

[ncpatriot]

I like the way you think.