[Aunt Polgara]

"In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.

Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glenn on said in a telephone interview. "

You did notice that Glennon DID NOT say that all of the features of the docs could be replicated with 1972 technology... I believe it's called lying by omission.

[okie01]

You did notice that Glennon DID NOT say that all of the features of the docs could be replicated with 1972 technology... I believe it's called lying by omission.

You noticed, as well?

Glennon got to have his cake...and ate it, too.

[Cboldt]

You did notice that Glennon DID NOT say that all of the features of the docs could be replicated with 1972 technology... I believe it's called lying by omission.

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."