Posted on 09/15/2004 5:44:51 PM PDT by John Jorsett
They would not have done the story without the documents. The verbal accusations were already available.
So, now it's OK to use forged, falsified documents in a story if they back up the people you have lined up to tell the lies you want to tell.
Others are on record contradicting their witnesses, but they don't get a mention. And the notion that the split is 50-50 among experts concerning the documents is ludicrous. It's very lopsided in favor of them being fake. The longer CBS tries to maintain their position, the more credibility they lose.
I have a couple of questions:
1. Did CBS pay for the forged documents?
2. If they did pay for the forged documents, is this a crime since they have presented these as authentic?
Right.
We know by now what CBS News considers a "credible source".
If they consider these obviously forged memos to be credible sources, why should we have any more faith in their other sources?
Local CBS affiliates not showing 60 Minutes?
Local CBS affiliates not showing 60 Minutes?
Exactly. In fact, people have actually tried, using the IBM Selectric Composer (the machine most often cited as having the necessary capabilities), and failed.
But according to the Dallas Morning News article from your link she said "that Staudt's larger-than-life dominance of the unit would have been reflected in Killian's personal files. She added, though, that there's no way Staudt could have exerted that influence after he retired."
Cordially,
Uhh, excuse me, but if a portion of our military were actually being influenced by a civilian, wouldn't that be a bigger problem than W missing a medical checkup?
That's a bull statement that has nothing to back it up...they're just blindly throwing things out now..."background reporting"....show us the proof.
To a person, everyone believes Rather is without credibility. Even the liberals and Kerry supporters are shaking their heads in disbelief that CBS does not fall on its sword in the face of such obvious fraud.
CBS has no idea about the degree of damage it has inflicted on itself, and I suspect it will grow in intensity as the denial/stonewalling continues. This will be water cooler/lobby talk for a long time. It really is making people question everything about 60 Minutes and CBS News.
"Four independent individuals with expertise in the authentication of documents were consulted prior to the broadcast of the story regarding the documents 60 MINUTES Wednesday obtained: document examiners Marcel B. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will and Linda James."
We already know that *both* Emily Will and Linda James are *off* the CBS bandwagon, having claimed they warned CBS that the documents had 'problems'. Marcel Matley has already said that he only verified the *signatures*.
That leaves one expert left.
Who is James J. Pierce?
Is he the man who is classified here as:
http://www.signascan.com/testimonials.htm
"Plaintiff's expert Pierce, a handwriting analyst, testified that plaintiff signed all of her physical therapy treatment logs on different occasions. He did not believe that the physical therapy signatures were fraudulent."
HANDWRITING ANALYST! And NOT A CONVINCING ONE! ...
"The jury was strongly persuaded by defendant's handwriting expert, John Cerlanek, and did not believe that plaintiff's handwriting expert refuted any of his testimony. "
Is this the man CBS picked?
What could a handwriting analyst tell us FROM COPIES?!?
CBS claims that not only didnt they give the experts copies,
they didnt have them either. If so, we now have
ZERO documentation experts to refute the 'MS Word' forgery case and typographic flaws in the documents. ZERO.
CASE CLOSED.
I agree. It is just bizaare. CBS nevers answers the basic fact that the chances are virtually nil that Killian could have created these documents, due to the proportional spacing, etc.
It really is a major blotch on the history of CBS News.
See BS says: See, these documents are proof, and not forged. How do we know they aren't forged, because we have interviewed other people who corroborate what the docuements say. That proves they are legitimate.
See BS says: What? You say that those who attest to the veracity of the content are proven liars and discredited or Bush-haters (which is true of every one that they have used to attest to the veracity of the forged memos)?
See BS says: But we have these memos which prove that what they say is true.
Infinite loop of leftist loony reasoning.
See BS has created this fraudulent loop and will die. They refuse to admit to the forgery because it runs so contrary to their worldview.
Guess CBS thought this election reform thing left them with all the cards.
I KNEW this was not true!
See this article, in particular, this part:
Matley has told CNN, The Washington Post and other media organizations that his work was limited to verifying that the signatures on the memos came from the same source. He did not, he says, claim that the documents themselves were authentic.
Matley says the signatures were MADE BY THE SAME PERSON.
He does NOT say that person was Killian.
Personally, I hope CBS keeps it up as long as possible. The issue has made Kerry invisible. He made some sort of economic speech today and about all I've seen is CBS, CBS, CBS (and Ivan Ivan Ivan). I love it. And if Kerry ever again has the guts to go in front of reporters (the last time was August 1), he's going to be asked nothing but "CBS memos" and "Swiftboat vet charges". Snicker.
Col KIllian's son, who served with him, just said on Hannity and Colmes that Ms Knox was a pool typist who would in no way have been privy to such information.
There are so many holes in this whole thing it's silly...and that would be the unanimous opinion across the land if it were not CBS' Party involved in the conspiracy.
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.