and 
Posted on 09/14/2004 9:43:28 PM PDT by charleston1
I don't normally watch the ABC World News Tonight, but after a tip from someone a time zone ahead of me, I decided to watch and videotape their news tonight. I am glad I did. As described on several other threads, ABC News took their gloves off and gave CBS News/60 Minutes a good hard public flogging. In an article entitled "Casting Further Doubt," ABC News left no doubt that the CBS Evening News has perpetrated a clear case of fraud on its listening audience. The written article is located here.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html.
In the article, ABC news systematically dismantled what was likely to have been Dan Rather's “Swan Song”. Instead, it will undoubtedly be the story that drowned his career, a career I used to respect years ago. I still fondly remember the Dan Rather that went to Afghanistan to report on the Mujadin. Wow, how far he has fallen since hiking through the mountains of Afghanistan. Whether ABC knows it or not, they went one step further than their story suggests. That is, they exposed malice and fraud by CBS News/60 Minutes. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I videotaped the news article. I stood there stunned as I watched the interview by Brian Ross with Emily Will and I have reviewed it several times. Was I seeing things? Yes I was! There in black and white was Ms. Will going over the one document CBS News gave to here to presumably authenticate. Brian Ross stated:
“Emily Will, a court certified examiner from North Carolina, says she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check in the days before the broadcast.”
Ms. Will said: "I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter."
On camera, Ms. Will goes over an enlarged display copy of the document she examined. Therein is the problem and the answer to the question of whether CBS News was honestly just reporting the facts. Unless Ms. Will is lying, CBS News/60 Minutes gave her a document that CBS has never publicly admitted that they had in their possession. Ms. Will carefully reviewed the alleged signature of Jerry B. Killian on the June 24th, 1973 letter addressed to “Sir”. I first found this same document on the USA Today website as one of six (not four as reported by CBS) alleged Killian documents which I first shared here on September 11th: search under "Killian" for the "Two more 'Killian' Documents" thread. Since CBS News did not make the June 24, 1973 document available at their website as part of their original story, the question for me ever since has been why? As it turns out in perfect hindsight, CBS has made significant efforts to lead the public to believe that they only had four documents. Just go back and watch the 60 Minutes II, interview again or go see the four documents on their website today. Why only four CBS documents? Recall that Marcel Matley, the respected signature expert used for the 60 Minutes II, interview to support the authenticity of the alleged Killian documents, was also only given one document to examine. Mr. Matley was given the 04 May 1972 document in which Lieutenant Colonel Killian allegedly ordered then Lieutenant Bush to report for his annual physical “not later than” May 14, 1972. This is a case of authentication shopping!!! It is also fraudulent and it was clearly done with malice as there is no other reason to restrict an honest authentication expert from seeing all of the evidence unless you already know the answer you want to hear. If anyone was duped, it would appear to be the documents experts themselves and an unsuspecting TV audience. Obviously, CBS should have shared all of their documents with all of their experts. It would appear that the truth they were looking for is frustratedly hard to find and harder to accept—a truth which exists in the minds of the investigators but not in their fictitious documents. In the end CBS News chose to use for its broadcast, the one signature that looked most authentic when compared to other known signatures of the late Colonel Killian. CBS News cast aside the document Ms. Will told them was not authentic. Of course, it is possible that Ms. Will was using the June 24, 1973, document as a prop provided by ABC, but I don't think so. I think Ms. Will did examine document number five of six (chronologically speaking). If not where did she get it, ABC News? Oh, and Bloggers, it’s charleston1@cox.net. Thanks.
And I am surprised by how little USA Today has to say on the matter. Something is not quite right with this.
and
The date just means when they were scanned, right? Does modification mean something was changed?
Yep!!
13x18?
they blew them up?
I would assume the create date is the date that the doc's were scanned, but technically, it is that date that the scanned images were "imported" and the PDF file created.
Modified does mean exactly that. But it COULD mean that:
1. A page was added
2. A page was deleted
3. the images IN the PDF were changed
I'm not sure WHAT they did, but the sizes can easily be seen by downloading the PDFs and opening them with Acrobat (NOT via the browser) - then with Ctrl-D (or File>Document Properties>summary)
those were post times - not necessarily when they got them(why did USA Today need to "modify" ?)
That is the document with only the two line header. CBS was told it was a fraud. The other two with headers had three line headers. All the headers line up together EXACTLY at the pixel level. The exclusion of that document by CBS demonstrates conclusively IMO that they had to know the others were likely frauds as well, even if they didn't have those authenticated (and it appears they didn't, because they knew what the answer would be)
Or what about enlarged?...Enlarging makes 'em fuzzier and look older, although they may do that so they can post them on a board during editorial meetings.
For those Freepers on Slow Connections, it is sometimes wise, when posting LARGE images to expand on the (IMG) tag as follows:
(img src="http://www.challengerdisaster.info/ABC%20WNT%209-14-04%203.bmp"
title="" alt="" style="width: 500px; height: 333px;")
The important part is the width and height aspects - these tell the browser what to expect and, by reducing them from, in your case 720 x 480, it takes less time to load.
Are you using Netscape to browse??
Can't say for certain.
The CBS Doc's are larger and were created on the 8th of September (could be a default setting in Adobe which caused the larger page size . . .) Also, if you lool closely at the right margin / bottom margin of the CBS doc's - you will see "white space" which would tend to be the lid of the scanner instead of the paper - maybe they didn't crop the images??
The USA Today document(s) were created on the 9th and the page size conforms closely to what you would expect. Notice - no white space!! BUT for some reason, the PDF file was modified on the 11th - impossible to say why.
If looked into the "source code" of the PDF's, but can find no information concerning what was modified.
Questions that need to be asked of CBS/USA TODAY:
1. How many documents to each of you exactly have? 4 and 6?
or 15 and 20?
2. How many experts did you consult? Any more than the ones we know about?
open to suggestions on other questions you have.
The CBS memos seem so much clearer.
Here are the USA Today memos - CBS Memo #5 just happens to be #5 in the USA Today sequence.
CBS knew what they had was a fraud and they put it out. Nothing new here, just fortunate that Dan Rather and MSM types think the average FReeper is a pajama wearing idiot. Heck I don't even wear pajamas when I FReep ... ok, scratch that ROFLMAO.
Seriously, Rather probably doesn't even do his own word processing. He doesn't know or understand the internet. He didn't see what's so obvious to everybody else ... it appears he & Mapes just knew that the story was falling apart on them so they ran with it (covering up what they could & hiding the rest - as their last remaining "witnesses" are Bush haters and not very credible in the least) and it blew up in their face.
Yes, the CBS docs are indeed better images because USA Today downgraded the quality of theirs on the 11th sometime after that first thread. They got hit pretty hard apparently. The old file was 484K and the new one is about 87K, IIRC. Anyway, the better 484K doc is on my website:
www.challengerdisater.info
Go download it before I hit my limit.
Well, I have a coupla more, seeing as how Dan has gone underground.
3. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with your daughter on this story?
4. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at the DNC, or the Texas Democratic Party, or any other democrat on this story?
5. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at moveon.org for this story?
6. Mr. Rather, did you or any of you staff consult with anyone at Texans for Truth for this story?
7. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at USA TODAY or the BOSTON GLOBE for this story?
"Breaking News" means...
Where does it say that? Please explain that to us who are not so familiar with your terms!
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.
![http://www.challengerdisaster.info/ABC%20WNT%209-14-04%203.bmp"](http://www.challengerdisaster.info/ABC%20WNT%209-14-04%203.bmp"){kind=link}