| Posted by TaxRelief to kjnspc On News/Activism 09/10/2004 9:57:26 PM EDT · 119 of 159 Dittos! The Internet is becoming an acceptable alternative for up-to-date information for more people every year. Perhaps I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons so many people are turning from the "Media Wing of the Democratic Party", to news sources like FR, is because the process of discussion ultimately leads to greater ACCURACY. I am an engineer. I was raised by an engineer. The scientific process does require challenging the hypotheses put forth by others. If these memos were put out there by a local weekly paper it would not be worth the effort, but discrediting the big guys is the best way to get people thinking about and questioning what they hear, rather than blindly accepting everything they are told. That being said, discrediting the memos with bogus "facts" rather than good information, questions the credibility of FR. Under normal circumstances, the process of discussion on FR is what makes it one of the most accurate sources of news. However, when the whole group gets caught up in the excitement of "bash CBS" or "snag the DNC", it becomes more like a witch hunt or an emotion fest and less like a discussion amongst intelligent people. For instance, many have argued that the Guard could not have afforded the machine that could do this. It's a weak argument at best. I call it the "far-fetched" argument. The "far-fetched" argument looks at the probability of an occurrence rather than the logical possibility of an occurrence. Probabilites are useful for determining which theory to test, but they are useless for ruling out 'modus operandi'. The typist could have used the machine anywhere. It could have been in his brother's business or the office of the guy who prints the newsletter. (You may notice that most liberal "expert" witnesses rely heavily on the "farfetched" argument.) In another example of emotional v. logical argument, many have argued that the font did not exist. Another weak argument. It is much easier to prove something exists than something does not exist. This font did exist. I have posted the specs and the precise measurements of each letter from a 1968 technical internal IBM document. The true Scientific Approach would be to determine the authenticity of the original documents through chemical and paper analysis. Handwriting analysis, while moderately subjective, is also helpful. Finding the colonel's fingerprints would be very damning indeed. Accurately, rather than emotionally proving forgery, in this case would benefit the entire country. It is critical that the American people know if CBS or the rats are lying through their teeth, even if it does put "the burden of proof" on FR. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| CBS KILLIAN MEMOS: DFU EXCLUSIVE FREEPER INTERVIEW with the expert - Dr. Philip Bouffard |
||||||
| Posted by TaxRelief to Stentor; Helms; All On News/Activism 09/10/2004 9:42:52 PM EDT · 81 of 104 Where your argument fails is that if you require proof that this ... is untrue, then any vomit, produced by anyone, must be proven to be untrue. Looking for proof of falsity is fundamental to the process of "discrediting". CBS, CNN, ABC, AP and NBC are like gods to a good portion of the American population. That being said, discrediting the memos with bogus "facts" rather than good information, questions the credibility of FR. Under normal circumstances, the process of discussion on FR is what makes it one of the most accurate sources of news. However, when the whole group gets caught up in the excitement of "bash CBS" or "snag the DNC", it becomes more like a witch hunt or an emotion fest and less like a discussion amongst intelligent people. For instance, many have argued that the Guard could not have afforded the machine that could do this. It's a weak argument at best. I call it the "far-fetched" argument. The "far-fetched" argument looks at the probability of an occurrence rather than the logical possibility of an occurrence. Probabilites are useful for determining which theory to test, but they are useless for ruling out 'modus operandi'. The typist could have used the machine anywhere. It could have been in his brother's business or the office of the guy who prints the newsletter. (You may notice that most liberal "expert" witnesses rely heavily on the "farfetched" argument.) The Scientific Approach would be to determine the authenticity of the original documents through chemical and paper analysis. Handwriting analysis, while moderately subjective, is also helpful. Finding the colonel's fingerprints would be very damning indeed. Accurately, rather than emotionally proving forgery, in this case would benefit the entire country. It is critical that the American people know if CBS or the rats are lying through their teeth, even if it does put "the burden of proof" on FR. |
||||||
Yep. There was a whole lot of back an forth before the font experts finished their analysis.
Two simple facts make Mapes claims rubbish. In the year since the CBS fiasco, not one document from ANY 1970 source has matched the typesetting features of the CBS documents. Even one piece of unrelated paper from any National Guard unit the matched those documents would do.
Second, even though IBM Composers were raher common, and some working units still exist, no one has been able to duplicate the appearance of the CBS documents.