Posted on 09/12/2004 9:39:44 AM PDT by Checkers
I have contacted CBS and encourage others to do the same.
Angry?... Some, but mostly I am laughing at CBS.
Everyone in America knows Dan Rather's documents are forgeries. It's truly funny watching Dan and the old media try to pretend that the documents are authentic.
As long as they are NOT the black pajamas Kerry's buddies wore, it should be all good.
I called and it just rang and rang and rang. I think they've disconnected the answering service (LOL)!
hughhewitt.com nicely sums up the rest.
INDC journal forces the boston Globe to back off.
60 minutes has used fake memos in other stories before.
Washington Times says the memos were forged.
Washingtom Post seems like they are giving Dan a chance to fess up before the avalanche of evidenc buries him.
Secretary would have done it.
*Bloggers have been overwhelmed with e-mails from active duty and retire dmilitary who scoff at the form of the memos;
They are not so dissimilar from attachments found in files released by the Bush Campaign. Apparently the ANG was very . . . loose, casual in it's handling and drafting of memos.
*Typewriters with proportional spacing were rare in '72/3;
IBM Executive, with a 'walnut' based on the Times New Roman 'book font', might appear a close match.
*Typewriters with superscripting capabilites were rare in '72/3;
The ONLY place in the documents released, to date, in which a superscript "th" is found is in Bush's cumulative military records, apparently filled out year by year. In 1968, somebody played around with a superscript "th", for some reason. All subsequent usage of "th", on the SAME FORM, are simply typewritten lower case. Out of hundreds of instances of the use of "th" in all the documents, only on this one line, in this one document, is a superscript "th" found. What's more, it doesn't even come close to matching the superscript "th" used in the CBS memos. Instead, those match the superscript automatically created by MS Word 2000 (and possibly 97, as well), using Times New Roman, or perhaps Palatino or something very close. If one isn't careful, typing "th" after a number will always be converted by MS Word 2000, by default, to upper case "th". It appears to be a case where a sloppy forger simply didn't account for all the MS Word auto-corrections.
The objection might be is that there's this undated summary, from somewhere, again a very casual informal looking document (which may have been ANG SOP, and is frustrating looking back on it, now - you don't get that plain paper sloppiness, extensive use of PO Box addresses, etc. with the Swift Vets/Navy documentation from Vietnam (go Navy)). That document has a premable concerning the Freedom of Info Act, which passed NOV 1974. So it might have seemed a big deal in late 74/early 75. But it's also possible that office machines with superscripting were becoming available by Christmas 74/75. That's only two years before the start of the Apple Computers.
*Typewriters with perfect centering ability were non-existent '72/3;
The IBM Composer was available in the mid-60s are could justify and center proportional text. But justification was a two pass operation, for every line. Perhaps the same for centering. However, someone might have taken the time to set up mag tape assist Composer with a pre-centered header. Or they may just have made copies. Then the question would be, do those letterheads in the CBS memos match too closely with computer centered text to have been done on a 1960's era Composer. In addition, some have suggested this was simply sent out to a printer. However, it's an awfully cheap looking letterhead for a print shop, to be honest. It might be that Composer was used, in house, informally, to run off masters which were then copied for use as memos. There do even appear to be slight differences in the fonts from the main text, even between lines in the same letterhead. But that could be due to FAXing/scanning errors, and one would have to see the original documents (which CBS apparently DOES NOT have). Or - they may just be what they appear to be, cheap forgeries.
*Typewriters with the "kerning" function didn't exist in '72/3;
"ay" is clearly 'kerned' in one CBS memo. There is no suggestion this was possible with the IBM Composer or Executive. The simplest explanation - it's an MS Word forgery.
*Most experts, from Dr.Cartwright at Rice, the above-referenced Dr. Bouffard and Farrell Shiver, range from certain to almost certain in their conclusions that the docs are not legit;
They'd have to. How does Occam's Razor go - simplest explanation that accurately fits the facts?
*The fake docs are easily and exactly reproduced on modern word-processing equipment, underscoring the ease with which the bad forgery could have been produced contrasted with the near impossibility of Lt Colonel Killian's producing them in 192/3;
The kerning, the letter spacing, the line up of words, line spacing, everything, suggests just by crude overlays that those alignments and lines say the CBS memeos are clearly a product of MS Word which people have been using to make these overlay matches.
But he leaves out SOMETHING CRITICAL. IT'S THE FIRST . . THING . . ONE . . NOTICES.
Yes.
Rather can go to his grave claiming these documents are true, but the real truth is this: The evidence is out in the public domain and the verdic has already been rendered.... CBS is guilty of misconduct!
Hmmmm? I believe Rush said on Friday that it's common knowledge the documents were GIVEN TO THE DNC who in turn GAVE THEM TO THE KERRY CAMPAIGN who in turn GAVE THEM TO CBS.
I don't really care who gave them to the DNC. The DNC had a fiduciary duty to expose these fraudulent documents being perpetrated against a sitting President. Failing to do so only further supports them as the "crooked, lying bunch" (a quote by John Kerry).
Until they cough up the originals so they can be put under a microscope to determine if the ink is sprayed on the surface as per a modern printer or the ink is embeded as per any typewriter..you got didly squat. Rag content of the paper, the ink componets and the size of the paper need to be subjected to scientific test..along with carbon dating of the paper.
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.