
Journal pudge's Journal: Forgeries 27
I am convinced the memos are forgeries. There's a negligible possibility they are not, sorta like the chance monkeys might fly out my butt. Feel free to read yet another in a long list of analyses that show how unreasonable it is to think these are not forgeries.
Here's a quick summary, for those not paying much attention: CBS did a story last week, in which they had some memos from a man named Killian, who died in 1984.
An overwhelming number of experts have offered strong testimony that the typography of the documents is inconsistent with what was available in 1972 and 1973.
CBS said experts verified them, but produced only one expert, who at CBS' request is not answering questions from anyone else, who could verify the signature belonged to Killian, and who could not verify they were originally affixed to the actual document in question, since CBS has only a photocopy.
One other expert came forward, but he only testified what was already essentially conceded, and is irrelevant: that typewriters did exist that could print a "th" superscript and use proportional spacing (which is essentially the only rebuttal CBS has offered to the tyopgraphical evidence, as well). So far, no other experts have come forward supporting the authenticity of the documents.
CBS produced two men who were apparently there, but both testified only that the contents of the memos reflected what Killian thought, not that they were authentic documents. One of the men never saw the documents, and upon seeing them, said he thought they were forgeries.
CBS interviewed members of Killian's family who said they were not authentic, but did not mention this in their report.
CBS has so far refused to give people access to their copies of the documents, or say where they got them.
In their followups, CBS has misrepresented experts who believe the documents are probably fake, and have refused to address all of the most important evidence against their authenticity.
There's more, but these are some of the main points.
My sincere hope is that this causes Americans to stop caring about who did what in Vietnam, but even more, to be much more critical of what the news media (and web sites) claim. Oh, and I hope some editorial staff at CBS and the Boston Globe (who was also misrepresenting the experts, and had their own parallel story about Bush's service record) lose their job over the stonewalling and misrepresentations.
Re:Excellent point (Score:2)
However, this latest thing must be settled. The documents are either forged or not. If they are forged, then it needs to be the end of Dan Rather, 60 Minutes, and maybe even CBS. The very fact that they won't discuss the issue, or release the original copies or mention sources indicates that they need to go.
As for everything else: who gives a damn? We've already elected a draft dodger, so both candidates are better than that!
Re:Excellent point (Score:1, Offtopic)
We've actually elected two draft dodgers... they just happen to differ on how they dodged the draft. One was overt, the other got appointed to a cushy gig in a National Guard unit that wouldn't ever see combat.
Re:Excellent point (Score:1, Offtopic)
Also, one big point is that one was legal, the other wasn't.
Merry Christmas!
Re:Excellent point (Score:1, Offtopic)
It may get him a slight edge - although I'm more inclined to rank years of service as a fighter pilot above four months commanding a small gunboat - but in my book at least, the outright lies he's told about his service since then more than negate that. The pet dog he says they had onboard, which was once blown 50' away onto another boa
Re:Excellent point (Score:2)
How is this off-topic?
You Lefties should be ashamed of yourselves, the way you've been moderating on Slashdot, and the hate-spewing, foul-mouthed, cop-beating, urine-throwing fucktards who represented you at the protests outside the RNC.
Typical.
Nice essay, Cyberdyne.
Re:Excellent point (Score:2)
Re:Excellent point (Score:2)
Re:Excellent point (Score:1, Offtopic)
Sorry, but there has been a lot moderation abuse and it is ticking me off.
He rebutted an off-topic post and was back on topic by the last two paragraphs. I think he did not deserve the off-topic moderation.
What happens next? (Score:2)
Re:What happens next? (Score:1)
After all, the first clash between republicans and democrats was Bleeding Kansas. Everything since the civil war has been child's play!
Re:What happens next? [ot] (Score:1)
Forgeries (Score:2)
The fact that there are technologies that could have produced those script letters and the "th" symbol, leave open the possibility that they are not forgeries. My mother has worked as a secretary/administrative assistant in the military for years... with all the brigades and platoons about with "th" and "st" as part of their designations, it is quite possi
Re:Forgeries (Score:2)
I waited several days for CBS to respond. They added they did not have originals and they have yet to offer to release the supposedly better copies they do have. They have lied and stonewalled. They have rejected the benefit of the doubt I had been offering.
What's more, the evidence against is entirely overwhelming.
I can make a document that looks almost exactly the
Re:Forgeries (Score:2)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.a s p [pcmag.com]
This, albeit partisan, analysis (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/160 3 [dailykos.com]
does a lot expand on the, possibly corrupting, methods that places like LittleGreenFootballs [littlegreenfootballs.com] (another partisan take) used to "prove" the forgery status.
I'm still waiting for a definitive word. The PC Mag article reflects my sentiments exactly.
Re:Forgeries (Score:2)
Re:Forgeries (Score:2)
The Globe has been almost as bad as CBS in all of this.
Re:Forgeries (Score:2)
It seems like your guy is grasping. Even in the original quote, Bouffard never said that the documents were authentic. He just backed out of his original statement that said it was impossible for those documents to have been created during the time they "supposedly" were.
That was my point. The documents aren't proven forgeries or authentic, yet. And all the "proof" that they are forgeries appears to be a bunch of people monkeying with their word processo
Re:Forgeries (Score:2)
Bouffard did not back down, he just said he could not be absolutely sure, which is what he said originally. Bouffard never said it was impossible. He said all along it was very unlikely, and the Globe instead chose to portray him as say
Wow, just wow (Score:2)
"But Katz, the software expert, pointed out that the documents have both the so-called "superscript" th (where the letters are slightly higher than the rest of the sentence, such as 6th ) and a regular-sized "th". That would be common on a typewriter, not a computer.
"There's one document from May 1972 that contains a normal "th" on the top. To produce that in Microsoft Word, you would have to go out of your way to
New article on the WP (Score:2)
Re:New article on the WP (Score:2)
Two interesting things to me:
1. Matley said he would not speak, on request of CBS. What changed?
2. What Matley is saying here is that his testimony to CBS had no meaning. What he said here -- what we already knew he knew -- is that he cannot say anything of interest. As far as he knows and can testify, someone could have copied the signatures and pasted them on the documents with a computer. His testimony is essentially useless and meaningless.
Of cour
Re:New article on the WP (Score:2)
and
Re:New article on the WP (Score:2)
Re:New article on the WP (Score:2)
I'm with you, I think these memos are as phoney as $3 bills, but I also don't think we've seen conclusive evidence that this COULDN'T have been produced on a typewriter. Overwhelming evidence that they're fraudule
Re:New article on the WP (Score:2)
I think the URL in the JE is fairly conclusive, on the issue of "pseudo-kerning"/ABC dimensions that these documents exhibit, but that didn't even exist until the 90s.
I would additionally question items like the centering...how the hell do you center stuff that well, manually, with a non-fixed width font?
Consider that this is in the head, so presumably, they type it often. They could beforehand measure the length of each line, fin
I am deeply concerned... (Score:3, Informative)
Today in the The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] we see the following: Will was not the only expert expressing doubts. But what I find most troubling is the following: Let me get this straight -- they actually STOP trusting an expert who RESEARCHES the materials she's trying to authenticate? I'm floored.
I get the VERY strong suspicion that 60 minutes already decided that the documents were authentic -- experts be damned. I see CBS, 60 minutes and Rather's attitude appears to be "Well, we say there are true. That should be good enough.".
Not only am I not buying it, it pisses me off. I TRUSTED 60 minutes. I TRUSTED Rather. They have lost my trust and I'll not view another CBS news show again unless they come clean.