[Taliesan]

After dealing with the typeface issues, Mapes presents contextual evidence to show that the documents make an uncannily smooth factual mesh with other documents of known provenance. Not the sort of thing one would expect from fakes.

1. As others have said so many times, the burden of proof is to prove a document is true, not to prove it is false. Mapes has reversed that presumption because of the weak position she is in intellectually.

2. It is amazing to hear journalists caught thinking out loud: we would not expect fakes to have a "smooth factual mesh" with genuine documents? You can't be serious! This is EXACTLY what you would expect from a fake! Who ever fakes a document without taking great pains to make it "mesh" with other known facts in the context? What boneheads these people must be.

3. I have not read Mapes' book, but maybe one of these true believers could extract just ONE NEW FACTUAL ARGUMENT from the book to refute the KNOWN FACT that the document matches exactly the default settings in Microsoft Word, which match creates an even greater PRESUMPTION that the document is fake unless proven true.

[samtheman]

refute the KNOWN FACT that the document matches exactly the default settings in Microsoft Word

She writes a whole book but remains stymied by a single fact. It must be painful to be a leftist idiot.

[ChinaThreat]

Exactly. A journlalist had damn well be able to prove their documents are genuine. Do I have to prove everything I read is fake, and if i can't, i should assume that it is true. Complete liberal non-sense. Mapes is a washed-up feminist loser who is pissed at the world. I think she would be better suited for science fiction than news.

[steve-b]

It is amazing to hear journalists caught thinking out loud: we would not expect fakes to have a "smooth factual mesh" with genuine documents? You can't be serious! This is EXACTLY what you would expect from a fake! Who ever fakes a document without taking great pains to make it "mesh" with other known facts in the context? What boneheads these people must be.

The only thing that's difficult to understand is how the faker went to such trouble to get various details correct, and then made the bonehead mistake of not using a font like Courier that would emulate a 1970s-vintage typewriter.

[Sam Hill]

"2. It is amazing to hear journalists caught thinking out loud: we would not expect fakes to have a "smooth factual mesh" with genuine documents? You can't be serious! This is EXACTLY what you would expect from a fake! Who ever fakes a document without taking great pains to make it "mesh" with other known facts in the context? What boneheads these people must be."

Please see my post at #86. The documents were inaccurate in many ways.