Posted on 09/10/2004 12:47:25 PM PDT by WoodstockCat
Hannity just said a story will be filed later today that from sources inside CBS that the source of the documents is also the one who provided the Abu Grihab prison photos.
This is interesting.... When did these documents supposedly come to light?
The Clintonistas planted a bomb... a freakin MOAB.
am not sure how this might impact the probable forgery, but in the .pdf file the P.O box is blacked out, but not enough to cover up the 34567. After one photocopy this number would not be visible. Photocopying machines, even when set to greyscale do not have the contrast resolution to be able to do this more than once. The only way this might be possible is if the document was put onto a digital scanner, obviously not available in the early 70s.
Excellent point..if I read you correctly these were first generation copies, the un blackened ones would be originals..?
Well, Mr Gannon what's the scoop? 4 million replies but not onee to you? I'm all ears.
More like a multimegaton hydrogen bomb.
Texans for Truth?
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/110687.shtml
Indymedia.org team in merger talks with CBS/Viacom
George Soros, CEO of Indymedia.org ltd has begun merger talks with the CBS/Viacom News Network to help bring together the Vibrant Staff of the Independant News Network with the resources and Global Consumer Reach of the CBS news network. This follows a meeting of the IMC Board of Directors and key Indymedia shareholders where it was decided that Indymedia needed to branch out from its traditional Liberal readership demographic to encompass more mainstream news interests and readerships....
"Don't worry .. there are many other problems with the memos"
Right! See post 478 for a biggie.
Can't believe it's taken me this long to get this formatted by how you two probably have a million replies.
Anyhoo, there were several good threads out here last night on this kerning discussion, but I believe, most of them went back to the Power Line analysis. If you click the link and Ctl-F to find kerning you'll find it. The guts of that section is:
==================================
UPDATE 10: Reader Jon-Erik Prichard adds what strikes me as an especially persuasive point:
[A]nother aspect of the type on [the August 18, 1973 memo] suggests, perhaps proves, forgery.
1. The type in the document is KERNED. Kerning is the typsetter's art of spacing various letters in such a manner that they are 'grouped' for better readability. Word processors do this automatically. NO TYPEWRITER CAN PHYSICALLY DO THIS.
To explain: the letter 'O' is curved on the outside. A letter such as 'T' has indented space under its cross bar. On a typewriter if one types an 'O' next to a 'T' then both letters remain separated by their physical space. When you type the same letters on a computer next to each other the are automatically 'kerned' or 'grouped' so that their individual spaces actually overlap. e. g., TO. As one can readily see the curvature of the 'O' nestles neatly under the cross bar of the 'T'. Two good kerning examples in the alleged memo are the word 'my' in the second line where 'm' and 'y' are neatly kerned and also the word 'not' in the fourth line where the 'o' and 't' overlap empty space. A typewriter doesn't 'know' what particular letter is next to another and can't make those types of aesthetic adjustments.
2. The kerning and proportional spacing in each of the lines of type track EXACTLY with 12 point Times Roman font on a six inch margin (left justified). Inother words, the sentences break just as they would on a computer and not as they would on a typewriter. Since the type on the memo is both proportionally spaced and kerned the lines of type break at certain instances (i.e., the last word in each line of the first paragraph are - 1. running, 2. regarding, 3. rating, 4. is, 5. either). If the memo was created on a typewriter the line breaks would be at different words (e. g., the word 'running' is at the absolute outside edge of the sentence and would probably not be on the first line).
3. The sentences have a wide variance in their AMOUNT of kerning and proportional spacing. Notice how the first line of the first paragraph seems squished together and little hard to read but the last line of the first paragraph has wider more open spacing. Even the characters themselves are squished in the first line (as a computer does automatically) and more spread out on the last line where there is more room.
There's no way a typewriter could 'set' the type in this memo and even a good typesetter using a Linotype machine of the era would have to spend hours getting this effect.
==========================
OK that's my contribution (gotta learn more HTML for my postings here to make them more glamorous LOL). I'm not an expert on this in any way, but what was said here seems plausible to me.
I just heard Hannity's interview with Killian's son...He and Killians widow gave Rather a list of Bush's fellow Guard members to interview..warned them about content ..but did not see documents...Were blown off as Bush supporters...
Amy Barnes of course is saying her father is lying.
Friday afternoon on Free Republic...... just can't be beat.
That is a reference to a different document. One "released by Bush." I'll see if I can find a link to it ...
Here's how dumb these forgery folks are. Outside of even doing an ounce of research about typewriters back in the day, the obviously didn't do ANY research on monotype typography (fonts) that are available for the computer. If so, they would have been far more successful in their forgery.
Too bad they're just plain stupid.
Marty Heldt ....... This guy was the source of much of the Primary and General election material slamming President Bush during 1999 and 2000..... I used to have URLs to much of his stuff and may still have some.... Interesting that this has surfaced from back in Jan. 2004 whereby it's being shown to be a fake....
Khan---I can't believe you found this. IF you google the Post Office Box you find these forged CBS memos discussed in internet news groups back in January.
Did you notice "Brooks Gregory" mentioned in what you found
Have you tried to email him?
How did he know about the memo in January of 2004?
(brooksgregory@sbctelco.com)
What a great, informative post. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. I'm flabbergasted by the knowledge of people on this site.
Just how did Booth get into Lincoln's box? How is it possible that Oswald could have fired off such incredibly accurate shots? With all the intel leads and warning tidbits, how is it that the 9/11 plot wasn't uncovered and prevented? Because, looking backwards, all the paths through the maze to the known conclusion are always brilliantly clear. This forgery probably was just a fairly well done one, but not perfect. Has all the features of a typical intelligence fabrication, gritty appearance, not the original copy, almost folksy patois, conveniently fits the need of the consumer. Doubt that this is a clever gambit by a cool and calculating mentality.
That is a reference to a different document. One "released by Bush." I'll see if I can find a link to it ... http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc7.gif <-- Clickit to view
(I don't want to swamp that site until I see all the docs!)
By my unprofessional calculation, there were three of those new "superscript-capable" typewriters in 1968, all of them stored in the "new product" office at the IBM labs at Schnecktedy, NY.
But Rather and CBS and the DNC wants us to think that somehow, this low level Natl. Guard commander somehow got his hands on this new fangled typewriter, and used it to type up what at the time were meaningless memos to himself.
The Dems have gone LoonyTunes.
BLOGGED
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.
