It must be late I was staring at "RUTROH" trying to figure out what
kind of web acronym R - U - T - R - O - H stood for when I finally sounded it out - out loud.
Good night!
Posted on 09/13/2004 7:39:52 PM PDT by jhouston
Edited on 09/13/2004 8:04:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It must be late I was staring at "RUTROH" trying to figure out what
kind of web acronym R - U - T - R - O - H stood for when I finally sounded it out - out loud.
Good night!
Article with links I added to what the experts REAL thoughts are.
http://www.peteandrews.net/site/2004/expert_cited_by_cbs_says_he_didn.htm
And it took the WaPo 6 days to figure out that this guy only evaluated the handwriting? More proof of an agenda driven media, and complicity.
"Examined" the signature, note he didn't even say he "authenticated" the signature. He can't. He wrote a paper for a professional journal that says signature authentication from a photocopy is IMPOSSIBLE.
So not even the signature has been authenticated by CBS's handwriting expert. And authentication of the signature does not establish the authenticity of the documents.
This expert can't say that the signature is authentic. He had an article published in a professional journal about 2 yeas ago that flat out says it is not possible to authenticate a signature from a copy. Period. It is only possible to conclude the signature is false, from a photocopy.
In other words, the CBS expert authenticated nothing, by his own account.
A 'right' cross knocked down the LEFTY in the late rounds.
Or, being asked the wrong question. The media asks the wrong question nearly ALL the time.
"Some people have said that the superscript could not have been made on a typewriter, is that true?" -- bad question, doesn't get to the nub, and permits the opponent to get one part right and with a wave of the hand, deflect other questions.
"The authenticity of these memos is drawn into question because many forensic features are inconsistent with typewriters of the era, and the substance is inconsistent with the official records. Are you a document expert, and what are the limitations of your expertise? Based on your qualifications, is this document authentic? If not, why not?" Good question. Open ended, doesn't lead the expert, establishes clear limits on the scope of the comments, etc. And for a document to be authentic, all aspects of it have to "jive."
LOL Great!
FReep for great justice!
The Washington Post has added a new and very important source -- Adobe, the god of fonts.
At the very, very least CBS has thrown itself out of the 'This Just In' business for this election cycle.
NYT article is tamer than the Post's, but it is on board.
Doesn't get in the papers in NYC? Check out the New York Post sometime.
Poor flounder has lost his website over this. His web host was overwhelmed by traffic.
We need to remember every word Dan Rather and CBS is using to dispute these memos as fakes. It seems all his so-called experts are cutting and running by denying what Dan Rather is implying concerning these memos. If and when Rather and CBS tries to use a slippery escape route to get out of this mess, one which they themselves have caused and which could have been minimized, we will have word-for-word the 'gotcha'.
I'll bet he hasn't found any.
"And Laura Bush is now commenting!! "
If Rather had any sense left, he'd want to come clean before the President is asked about this at a press conference.
When the Pres. comes out and says the memos are forgeries its going to be TSHTF again for CBS.
And, I noticed in the Drudge article from CBS news last night 'Questions Linger Over Bush Memos' that there was an actual quote from Col. Udell, of the TANG that says: ""I completely am disgusted with this (report) I saw on 60 Minutes,"' Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968." "
That is the first instance of CBS deviating from the Rather insistance that the Docs are real.
Could CBS be trying to distance themselves from Rather?
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.