Posted on 09/11/2004 9:25:07 AM PDT by HighWheeler
Thanks for the link, I was hoping that there would be some technical analysis of the signatures.
I would like to see what the paid experts think of the signatures.
Forged signature is worse for Rather of course, but even an "authentic" sig doesn't help him, as he has admitted he was working from copies, which could have easily had photoshopped authentic sigs.
You're welcome. Thanks for the thread.
The fact that they didn't copy a signature is interesting, but it does cement any accusations of forgery.
The creator of this document at least knew they had to create the signatures, but it looks like they failed. Signature forgery aught to get the forger a few years in the clink.
If the sig is authentic then it is a cut and paste copy and the original exists somewhere. Someone should find it and voila. The odds of two handwritten sigs being identical are infinitesimal.
No one in Rather's crowd has explained why they only had copies anyway, and why they were such bad ones. These papers (probably copied 15 times each from their appearance) are from a "personal file"? Yeah, right. Who amongst us has anything like that in a personal file, regardless of our careers?
Good point. The availability of an authentic Killian signature to the forger would be the same for virtually anyone else. Proving that the documents were forged would then be a cinch.
I think the Killian signature is a cut and paste copy
If these are copies, you can cut/paste any signatures.
If the sigs were cut-and-paste, they would be easily verified by simply layering over the original. If the forger could get originals, anyone could get them.
This looks like a simple, badly executed forgery. The forger used only the basic outline of the signatures, and didn't pay attention to the details. The devil is in the details.
bump
HAHAHAH! I like that superscript!
Dan is going down and is taking a few "experts" with him to the dustbin.
'If the sigs were cut-and-paste, they would be easily verified by simply layering over the original
....The devil is in the details."
Very true. Haven't thought of it but maybe neither did the forger. I think we're not dealing with an very bright forger here , are we?
I'm no expert, but in just eyeballing them I can see they don't match--
The real sigs he writes out his first name and middle initital in the memos he doesn't.
Also the slant is all wrong. in the real sig the letters are all heavily slated, not in the memos
the double ll-s in the real signature are all looped. in the memo they are not.
Even a layman can see this is not the same signature. Not even close.
bump
Killian's signature is very hard to duplicate, for several reasons. He spells out his entire name, and has a quilling art to the pen strokes. He also used a lot of loops and curls in his signature that are also difficult to re-master.
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.