Mike Hammer fighting the Communists -- great story.
Posted on 09/10/2004 3:18:38 PM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 09/10/2004 4:53:58 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
There are two problems with that thinking. Rather is old; his walls and roof have grown weak. And this is a bigger storm than he's ever faced before. And the last factor is the Hawaiian wrinkle. He's in the house with some folks -- the owners of CBS -- who might throw Rather in the front yard to drown, if it looks like that sacrifice will make the Hurricane Gods go away.
Congressman Billybob
Hmm, so this guy is somehow able to see me when I do my Today Show posts?
Liberal rule number 1. Divert and deny, deny, deny!!!
Yes,me too and my brain is just reeling...but I have a BIG smile on my face.:-)
We had a thread on the draft a few days ago. It seems the lottery began in 1969. The first drawing covered birthdays from about 1945 to 1950. The 2nd drawing covered 1951 birthdays. The 3rd drawing covered 1952 birthdays, in which my number was 300 and something. The final year of the draft was 1973 I think.
..Look, just about 5 years ago, CNN admitted the "Tailwind" story was a hoax, then ended up paying the producer and reporter a few million each to just go away..Rather should hold out for $50 mill, easy..
I have just finished reading 1206 posts and I am now going to put my PAJAMAS on and go to bed.
"I guess the distinction is that whomever it was that pulled the hoax used a 1972 typesetter and thought they could pull it off."
If so, they were indeed stupid, the chance that Killian would have used a typesetter in 72 is equivalent to the possibility that he had Mickey Spillane type the documents for him.
If you can, catch the rerun of the show later or tape it. The first part of the show was must see TV.
If he was born in 1946, then the 1969 draft would have included his year group because it was a broad year group -- about 1945 to 1950 (18.5 to 26 years old).
It was a moot point because he was already in service.
Doesn't George Bush have a defamation claim against CBS? You can say just about anything -- whether it's true of false -- but you can't falsify official records to libel even the most public of figures.
The one thing that seems obvious to me about the signature aspect of these memos is even if they aren't a straight up forgery, since the documents have been photocopied so many times, couldn't it be pretty easy to physically cut and paste the signature (then white out any edge lines in the next generation of copies)?
And that's not even taking in to consideration what can be done with a computer and Photoshop.
The economic repercussions could be huge, as Viacom/CBS lose big with the public, and eventually throw Rather to the wolves to protect the remnants of their investments. The maximum effect (possible, not probable) is for the lamestream media to recognize that they have just dropped to second place in the US to the new media. At that point, the net media lead, the old media follows, and the NY Times becomes a museum piece.
John / Billybob
Whoa, that was a scary April Fools joke.
HOWEVER, IF YOU WANT TO INVESTIGATE THE SIGNATURES:
On this particular document (Memorandum For Record,Aug. 1, 1972) you will notice that the top of the signature is cut off and if you run a ruler across the bottom of the memo you will notice that the loop is cut off exactly where the bottom line of the memo is. You can't do that as part of your signature. That is a mistake. If you look at this memo: Memorandum, May 4, 1972 the loop is full, however a piece of the line is missing that could be attributed to copy loss or ink failure. But cutting off the top of a loop in a perfect horizontal break parallel to the bottom of the typed line is impossible.
This needs further investigation. It is clear that the signature was not a part of the original (computer generated) memo and was pasted on later.
Amateur hour at the forgery factory. Just do the ruler test.
The signature is cut off exactly where the bottom of the memo would run if you continued typing to the end of the page. That could only happen if the signature was pasted on later.
I am surprised the the Defense Investigative Service isn't asking Rather some hard questions right about now. Forging official government documents is a felony under US statutes on counterfeit and forgery. Forgery isn't just producing the document. It is also unlawful to pass it off as legitimate knowing that it isn't.
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.