[longshadow]

That might explain the handwriting expert IF Rather is setting us up. But why type a document to look like the real thing if the original is handwritten?

Because the "original" handwritten document is ALSO a forgery; by replicating it on a WP and letting everyone wail away at it as a "forgery" for a week, they can say "well, the original is really hard to read -- it's 30 years old and has been copied many times -- so someone replicated it to make it easier to read, but we've seen the handwritten copies." And then they'll announce that the "forgery" issue has been refuted, and act like the documents are valid.

Notice the wording of Rather's remarks tonite: "people are focussing on the documents instead of what they say..." I smell a sneaky trick about to be sprung, and this explains why Rather isn't backing down. They are going to proclaim the originals WERE handwritten, and that all this internet frenzy about "forgeries" is "much ado about nothing".....

It also explains why they had a handwriting analyst instead of a document analyst as an expert, and why they only showed him examining the signature.....

The "bait and switch" is about to be played on us....

[Texasforever]

He can't do that since he based his entire rebuttal on the fact that typewriters of the era had the features being questioned.

[Conservababe]

I smell a sneaky trick about to be sprung, and this explains why Rather isn't backing down. They are going to proclaim the originals WERE handwritten, and that all this internet frenzy about "forgeries" is "much ado about nothing".....

I believe that you are correct. What worries me the most is that 34567 PO address.

[airborne]

But they've been passing these off as copies of the originals, and defending the typed documents as legitimate circa 1970's.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Notice the wording of Rather's remarks tonite: "people are focussing on the documents instead of what they say..."

That's nothing. There was some guy on the live thread with us Wed night who was saying the exact same thing. They are only talking points.

If CBS news put these docs on their website, and now want to say that they were entirely transcriptions from handwritten docs......the whole network is done.

[CA Conservative]

They are going to proclaim the originals WERE handwritten, and that all this internet frenzy about "forgeries" is "much ado about nothing".....

This scenario might make sense if they hadn't made the mistake of adding a signature to the memos. If they now claim all they had were handwritten notes, they also admit that they forged the signatures on the memos. It is is still forgery either way, and harder to justify or explain under this scenario.

[hole_n_one]

Why did Rather emphasize the superscript comparison between a Killian memo and another doc produced in the early 70's tonight when attempting to support his claim of authenticity if he's going to produced handwritten docs later?

[Dolphy]

Notice the wording of Rather's remarks tonite: "people are focussing on the documents instead of what they say..." I smell a sneaky trick about to be sprung, and this explains why Rather isn't backing down. They are going to proclaim the originals WERE handwritten, and that all this internet frenzy about "forgeries" is "much ado about nothing".....

I'm cynical too because I can't yet come to grips with Rather stooping to what amounts to nothing but a propaganda piece with the sole purpose of swaying a historical election. But don't you think he would have said he had the original handwritten documents today when he was feeling so much heat? He will have lost too much credibility to produce handwritten notes now, they presented the documents as copies of the originals.

[CobaltBlue]

Oh, right. They're going to rest their case on documents which they can't produce, not on official letterhead, no signature, allegedly written by a man who's been dead for 20 years, about events which occured more than 30 years ago, with no corroborating witness?

I don't think so.

[js1138]

They are going to proclaim the originals WERE handwritten, and that all this internet frenzy about "forgeries" is "much ado about nothing".....

It's always good to have a few paranoid thoughts now and then, but CBS has already said thy don't have any originals, and their handwriting expert is now on record saying he only looked at one signature on one document.

[spokeshave]

"It also explains why they had a handwriting analyst instead of a document analyst as an expert, and why they only showed him examining the signature.....

The "bait and switch" is about to be played on us....

Well then...explain the reference to the non-existent AFM 35-13 in the forged Killian memo of 4 May 1972.

AFM 35-13 is related to payment for foreign language skills and NOTHING to do with annual physical exams.