Evidence Against Rather (cont'd): FR Forgery Talking Points

About 1500 or more posts on this site. :-) | dickmc and skypilot

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Someone has been snoopin round FR

CBS & Rather need to address the following:

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/42086718.html

[Diddley]

Application for Reserve Assignment, dated 2 JUN 1972 [Signed by Rufus G Martin], has (Bush, George W., 1st Lt )
(I don’t recall where I found the document)

[neonjoe]

Been following all this for several days solid. In my opinion, _this is the info that trumps everything I've read and breaks Rather's back:_

http://www.neiluchitel.com/index.php?p=299

Paraphrasing what he says, comparing the supposed old document to a new MS Word document:

If you take character spacing, spaces between words and spacing between lines (jeez, I haven't heard of "Leading" since before, ummm... well, way back :-) of the 1972 14 line document, and look at the documents in terms of total type volume taken up, there is no way they can exactly match. NO WAY.

I realize the source (somebody's prof) is unnamed, but regardless, as a computer professional, I support what they put forth. Think about it.

The only way the past and present documents could match is if CBS did not publish exact images of what they had, in other words, in making the documents available to the world, they put what they had through some process that changed character spacing, word spacing and line spacing, such that it exactly corresponded to a Word document.

I regard that possibility as remote. Even if it is a possibility, CBS would be called on it, and they would then be forced to produce exact images of what they had. Then we could tear them apart all over again.

Note that the unnamed source's contact info is available upon request from the person who wrote the piece.

I'm all whupped out from following this into the wee hours, got to get some sleep, so please, if there's somebody out there with more energy than I, take this and run with it, I ain't proud. :-)

[neonjoe]

Correction to above:

"1972 14 line document" should read "18 Aug 1973 14 line document."

Sorry, just a bit tired.

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

#36 is the biggest potential bombshell of all. If it can be proved that these documents were being sold for $7 on the internet in 1999/2000, then it is game over, regardless of what weird typewriters are unearthed. How do we move forward on this point?

[Pharlap]

Regarding the possibility that CBS "copied" the documents they have (presumably typewritten) with a computer: Why would the so copied documents look so old? They would look "new", and CBS would say something like: we copied them to make then more readable. Obviously, this is not the case.

[Verginius Rufus]

Related to #34: according to the purported memo of 04 May 1972, Bush is ordered to have his physical not later than 14 May. May 14th fell on a Sunday in 1972, and it seems unlikely that physicals were given on weekends. Either Killian ignored this (in effect giving Bush only till May 12) or more probably the forger did not think to look at a 1972 calendar.

[Cboldt]

50. The manual cited in the forged document "AFM 35-13" doesn't exist. That line of text reads: "to conduct annual physical examination (flight)IAW AFM 35-13". "IAW" means "In Accordance With" and "AFM 35-13" would mean "Air Force Manual 35-13". There is no such Air Force Manual 35-13.

See page 10 of the following ...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-4_2004_Personnel_File.pdf

[YaYa123]

I want everyone to look at Kerry making a speech on C-Span...playing now. its to the Black Caucus. Watch his crazy hand and arm gestures. I can't get over how out of sync he is with his own self.

This is one of the few times his gestures aren't hidden by newscrolls

[YaYa123]

Even the black congressional caucus is not impressed with Kerry's speech.

[dickmc]

Thanks for all your help and input. The continued thread for
all your review and comment is

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1214226/posts?page=1