Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/10/2004 1:46:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:51:16 PM EST
Typical fuckin' whitewash.

They talked about ONE aspect of the forgery. ONE.

Trotted out ONE expert. ONE.

Trotted out ONE officer from the ANG. ONE.

Then dismissed it all.


What a disgusting bunch of bastards. At least Rather sounded like crap, his voice. Almost like he was gonna cry.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:51:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 1:52:02 PM EST by the]
Dont forget: a CBS producer interviewed both the late colonel's son and ex-wife. Both told the producer that these documents were not likely to be authentic; that the colonel thought highly of Bush and his service.

The producer pretended those interviews never happened.

(heard on the Hannity show today, straight from the colonel's son)

Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:54:44 PM EST
I love how they blamed it all on "partisans". Like what is CBS? And the fact that Kerry supporting experts said the documents they were 99% sure they were fakes.

And how it was so bad that people would dare focus on a possible federal felony, and not on the issues these fakes raise!
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 1:58:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 2:03:10 PM EST by TexasRooter]
Rather is a complete asshat, the best part of him ran down his momma's asscrack.

Worthless prick was too stupid to come out of the hurricane (CARLA) , and for that the prick became a national anchor To the ruin of Wharton Texas.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:03:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 2:16:43 PM EST by Janus]
Also:
General sited in memo was retired at the date of the memo.
Regulation sited for medical exam is actualy forign language proficiency testing. see my post below
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:08:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Janus:

Regulation sited for medical exam is actualy forign language proficiency testing.




No shit?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:10:09 PM EST

Before this report, I was worried that they might be right, but not now since SO much was either not mentioned or glossed over.

1. Signatures – It does NOT take a genius to see that after so many copied (intentional I think) that the validly of signatures are called into question. Why, because it obliterates ANY evidence of tampering.
2. Most recent copies – Why not offer the originals, or the closest thing they have to them
3. How about the proportional type in left/right and up/down
4. How about telling why documents from the office both BEFORE and AFTER look different.
5. Why not tell the source for the information
6. Why not interview his widow and son – both of who refute your claims in both the personal habits of the LTC an his statements about President Bush
7. How much would a typewriter cost in 1973 with all the features listed and why would it have been in the Air National Guard in an LTC’s office?


Oh, and was it just me or did the superscripted 'st' look liek it was done by the printing press that made the form?

Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:16:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Janus:

Regulation sited for medical exam is actualy forign language proficiency testing.




No shit?



Sorry, looks like that one was just shot down.

www.donaldsensing.com/2004/09/more-format-and-content-analysis-of.html
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 2:23:32 PM EST
Okay, I found a good listing of all the issues with the memo.

qando.net/archives/004070.htm


Typographical Arguments

1. The use of superscripted "th" in unit names, e.g. 187th. This was a highly unusual feature, available only on extremely expensive typewriters at the time.
2. The use of proportional fonts was, similarly, restricted to a small number of high-end typewriters.
3. The text of the memos appear to use letter kerning, a physical impossibility for any typewriter at the time.
4. Apostrophes in the documents use curled serifs. Typewriters used straight hash marks for both quotation marks and apostrophes.
5. The font appears indistinguishable from the Times New Roman computer font. While the Times Roman and Times fonts were rare, but available, in some typewriters at the time, the letters in Times Roman and Times took up more horizontal space than Times New Roman does. Times New Roman is exclusively a computer font.
6. Reproductions of the memos in Microsoft Word using 12pt TNR and the default Word page setup are indistinguishable from the memos when superimposed.
7. The typed squadron letterhead is centered on the page, an extremely difficult operation to perform manually.
8. Several highly reputable forensic document specialists have publicly stated their opinions that the documents were most likely computer generated, and hence, are forgeries.
9. The numeral 4 has no "foot" serif and a closed top. This is indicative of the Times New Roman Font, used exclusively by computers.

Stylistic Arguments

1. The memos do not use the proper USAF letterhead, in required use since 1948. Instead they are typed. In general, typed letterhead is restricted to computer-generated orders, which were usually printed by teletype, chain printer or daisy-wheel printer, the latter looking like a typed letter. Manually typed correspondence is supposed to use official USAF letterhead. However, even special orders, which used a typed letterhead, were required to use ALL CAPS in the letterhead.
2. The typed Letterhead gives the address as "Houston, Texas". The standard formulation for addresses at USAF installations should require the address to read "Ellington AFB, Texas".
3. Killian's signature block should read:

RICHARD B. KILLIAN, Lt Col, TexANG
Commander

This is the required USAF formulation for a signature block.
4. Lt Col Killian's signature should be aligned to the left side of the page. Indented signature blocks are not a USAF standard.
5. The rank abbreviations are applied inconsistently and incorrectly, for example the use of periods in USAF rank abbreviations is incorrect. The modern formulation for rank abbreviations for the lieutenant grades in the USAF is 2Lt and 1Lt. In 1973, it may well have been 2nd Lt and 1st Lt, but that certainly wasn't correct in 1984, when I entered active duty, so I find the rank abbreviation questionable, and, in any event, they would not have included periods. Lt Col Killian's abbreviations are pretty much universally incorrect in the memos.
6. The unit name abbreviations use periods. This is incorrect. USAF unit abbreviations use only capital letters with no periods. For example, 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron would be abbreviated as 111th FIS, not 111th F.I.S.
7. The Formulation used in the memos, i.e., "MEMORANDOM FOR 1st Lt. Bush..." is incorrect. A memo would be written on plain (non-letterhead) paper, with the top line reading "MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD".
8. An order from a superior, directing a junior to perform a specific task would not be in the memorandum format as presented. Instead, it would use the USAF standard internal memo format, as follows:

FROM: Lt Col Killian, Richard B.

SUBJECT: Annual Physical Examination (Flight)

TO: 1Lt Bush, George W.

Documents that are titled as MEMORANDUM are used only for file purposes, and not for communications.
9. The memos use the formulation "...in accordance with (IAW)..." The abbreviation IAW is a universal abbreviation in the USAF, hence it is not spelled out, rather it is used for no other reason than to eliminate the word "in accordance with" from official communications. There are several such universal abbreviation, such as NLT for "no later than".
10. The title of one of the memos is CYA, a popular euphemism for covering one's...ahem...posterior. It is doubtful that any serving officer would use such a colloquialism in any document that might come under official scrutiny.

Personal Arguments

1. The records purport to be from Lt Col Killian's "personal files", yet, they were not obtained from his family, but through some unknown 3rd party. It is an odd kind of "personal file" when the family of a deceased person is unaware of the file's existence and it is not in their possession.
2. Both Lt Col Killian's wife and son, as well as the EAFB personnel officer do not find the memos credible.
3. Keeping such derogatory personal memos , while at the same time, writing glowing OERs for Mr. Bush would be unwise for any officer. At best, it would raise serious questions about why his private judgments differed so radically from his official ones, should they ever come to light. At worst, they would raise questions about whether Lt Col Killian falsified official documents. As Lt Col Killian's son, himself a retired USAF officer, has said, nothing good can come of keeping such files.

Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:07:57 PM EST
Don't forget the colonel's son also checked with the rest of the family to make sure it didn't come from any of them.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:14:16 PM EST
The Dems are really desperate to get rid of GWB Jr. that they're shooting themselves in the foot, and blowing away a leg.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:19:10 PM EST
This is totally beautiful. Not only is Kerry on his way to a blow-out, but Dan Rather will be exposed for the lying, partisan fucktard that most of us have always known him for. This is almost as good as in 2001 when, right around the inauguration, Jesse Jackson was exposed for knocking up his personal assistant and then paying her hush money out of his non-profit.

I HAVE ALWAYS HATED DAN RATHER!
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:26:55 PM EST
One more reason for a forgery, just heard it on Fox. I knew something was fishy, but didn't know how it worked in the ANG.

Memo told 1LT Bush to go get his flight physical by 14 May. Flight physicals are due by the LAST day of the birthmonth....so, he actually had until 1 June to get it done without any problems. In addition, I guess in the Guard, there's a three-month window; so he would not have been overdue until 1 August.

So, ordering 1Lt Bush to get a flight physical that was overdue, when he actually had about 10 more weeks to get it without being overdue, is very suspicious.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:38:53 PM EST
And the big winner?
The General referenced in the letter.......RETIRED the year BEFORE the letter was written.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 3:48:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 3:52:36 PM EST by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:12:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 5:17:47 PM EST by Max_Mike]
WHO GAVE CBS THESE DOCUMENTS AND WHERE DID THEY GET THEM.

Notice CBS did not address this just evaded.

People have examined this issue for years and documents are produced from where…thin air.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:20:27 PM EST
WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH???
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:20:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
WHO GAVE CBS THESE DOCUMENTS AND WHERE DID THEY GET THEM.

Notice CBS did not address this just evaded.

People have examined this issue for years and documents are produced from where…thin air.




Yeah, that's why it looks more and more like THEY faked it rather then getting duped by somebody else.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:20:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
WHO GAVE CBS THESE DOCUMENTS AND WHERE DID THEY GET THEM.



Where the fuck do you think?

Interesting that they'll protect a completely bogus source. Well, not interesting if you think about it.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:29:11 PM EST
I know and you know where they got the documents. The world knows that is Rather’s problem.

People have been looking at the official record for years and this just turns up out of the blue… yea right.

Rather also just does not think he needs to mention that he has been to Democratic fund raising events as a guest of Ben Barnes.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 5:33:40 PM EST
Look for Rather to show up in the next few days, on The David Letterman Show. This is where he usually goes when it's time to spin his assclown behavior, without being on the news desk. As he's gotten older, I think he doesn't much care if everyone sees him a s the socialist he is. And he is.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 6:14:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By faris:
And the big winner?
The General referenced in the letter.......RETIRED the year BEFORE the letter was written.



LINK?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:29:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Closes his rebuttal to the forgery charges saying if there was any evidence that counters CBS's position they have not seen it, and if they do, they will report it.

How about:

Colonel's wife says husband didn't keep personal files, or type
Son back's up mom's contention, and says nobody has found any files
While there were typewriters that could do superscript, there were none that did curved apostrophes
American Spectator reported DNC gave docs to CBS
CBS has one expert on their side, every other expert questioned says looks like forgeries
Colonel's personnel officer said these documents were not the kind of thing the Colonel would keep
Colonel told his wife, children and friends he was honored to serve with Bush




whether u believe either side , none of this is real concrete proof given by either side.
Its all hearsay.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:31:36 PM EST
is anyone besides dan rather and his ilk at CBS actually taking this blatant forgery seriously?

every other news agency i have seen has been lampooning this 'damning evidence'
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:35:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 8:36:41 PM EST by Spade]

Originally Posted By Hexagram13:

Originally Posted By faris:
And the big winner?
The General referenced in the letter.......RETIRED the year BEFORE the letter was written.



LINK?



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=272890&page=1

Yay, I posted something useful.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:38:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
is anyone besides dan rather and his ilk at CBS actually taking this blatant forgery seriously?

every other news agency i have seen has been lampooning this 'damning evidence'




Boston Globe, NYT, and the DNC.

Everybody else talked about it as real until a couple hours after Post #47 on Free Republic and then smelled the blood in the water.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:54:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By rogerdodger:

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Closes his rebuttal to the forgery charges saying if there was any evidence that counters CBS's position they have not seen it, and if they do, they will report it.

How about:

Colonel's wife says husband didn't keep personal files, or type
Son back's up mom's contention, and says nobody has found any files
While there were typewriters that could do superscript, there were none that did curved apostrophes
American Spectator reported DNC gave docs to CBS
CBS has one expert on their side, every other expert questioned says looks like forgeries
Colonel's personnel officer said these documents were not the kind of thing the Colonel would keep
Colonel told his wife, children and friends he was honored to serve with Bush




whether u believe either side , none of this is real concrete proof given by either side.
Its all hearsay.




Well, there is a saying ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’, and since they made the initial extraordinary claims, then the burden of proof is on them to show they are valid and NOT on us to prove them fakes.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:36:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:52:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 9:56:19 PM EST by Spade]

Originally Posted By poink:
is anyone besides dan rather and his ilk at CBS actually taking this blatant forgery seriously?

every other news agency i have seen has been lampooning this 'damning evidence'



Here is a better answer to your question as to who likes it and who doesn't.

patterico.com/archives/002690.php#002690


Of the three major national newspapers that trumpeted the documents' allegations yesterday on their front pages, the only one to run a front-page story detailing these developments today is the Washington Post. The New York Times and L.A. Times bury the questions about the documents' authenticity inside the paper. The L.A. Times story runs on page A18, for crying out loud.

There is no excuse for this. None.

Worse, the L.A. Times story works hard to spin the controversy as a minor, purely partisan issue.

The L.A. Times story bears the headline Guard Memos Fuel Another Vietnam-Era Battle. Note that the headline contains no reference to the strong possibility that these documents were forged. The spin is apparent right there




I really feel bad for that asshat Ben Barnes' daughter. It took a lot of guts to come out like she did against her own father, and she is apparently being pressured heavily to either shut up or recant. On FoxNews she almost sounded like she was about to cry at times.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 10:26:02 PM EST
ABC radio was being pretty explicit about it, and claimes that ABC Radio was told about many of the discrepancies by the family and others, they didn't mention it was the Hannity Program on ABC Radio.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 10:40:25 PM EST
I just think it would be neat if the FBI investigated it and put a few people in jail for Forgery.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 11:44:46 PM EST

I just think it would be neat if the FBI investigated it and put a few people in jail for Forgery.


It would be even better if CBS, the NYT, AP, and others were charged with Posing as Objective News Organizations, especially given how McCain-Feingold has given them special status that they are abusing. Should be easy to prove to a jury just by looking at archives of their coverage and amounts of time given to the Swift Boat Vets vs. the Bush AWOL story.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:15:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Forensic proof is not hearsay. The fact that there was no typewriter in existance that made curvy quotations rather than just slashes is clearly demonstrative of the fact that it could not have been done on a typewriter of that era.



i saw experts that said there were typewriters that did .

But it is up to CBS to prove their case.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:40:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By rogerdodger:


i saw experts that said there were typewriters that did .

.




I saw experts say there was one typewriter at the time that could have and there's no way a Texas ANG Lt. Col. would own such an expensive piece of equipment.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:47:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 4:48:45 AM EST by the]

Originally Posted By rogerdodger:
i saw experts that said there were typewriters that did .

But it is up to CBS to prove their case.
Just playing devil's advocate here.



Actually Rather said that his expert said "that type of font was available at the time." What he neglected to say, was on what type of machines - typically typesetting equipment for the printing of books. Not common typewriters, nor anything commonly used by the military to type memos.

Little omissions like that cast doubt on Rather's feeble defense.

Furthermore. The fact that the "authentic" memo that CBS offers can be so exactly recreated by using the default settings on Microsoft Word says it all. The chance that it would be such a perfect match to ANY document typed back in 1972 is slim to none.

The documents are fake.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:49:25 AM EST
Blah, blah, blah.

After listening to you guys and Dan Rather, my conclusion is you guys aren't seeing the forest through the trees.

Why is Rather doing a story about Bush ANG service, but not saying a word about Kerry's service record?

No bias there...................

I see far more news about what mopey joe, and goofy gus have to say about what the candidates say, then I see the actual candidates on the news.

How many news reports have clearly stated what each candidates position is one even 1 issue?

I think the country is becoming more and more polarized. (D) and (R) before or after a person's name mean more to a whole lot of people than anything else.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:57:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

I think the country is becoming more and more polarized. (D) and (R) before or after a person's name mean more to a whole lot of people than anything else.



Well, to Dan Rather it obviously means more than telling the truth.

One of America's most "respected" newsmen, for many decades, is now a proven fraud. Proven a fraud and a shill by the average folks.

That's news. Remember it the next time Dan does a story on "assault weapons."
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:59:39 AM EST
As far as the documents, ALL of them are copies of copies.

Dan Rather says "his" experts did the best comparison because they had the "freshest" copies.

The also indicated that documents officially released from Bush, have superscript in them.

I saw some of the examiners that CBS used being interviewed, saying that the Lt. Col. Killian signature was authentic.......................

If you are examining copies of copies, how do you know that signature wasn't copies onto that form seperately using a little "copier editing"?

Why would Lt. Col. Killian write memos, to correspond "un-officially" and use a formal signature line?

Why would he even write down what those memos have in them?

Lt. Col. Killian was reportedly a non-typer. Makes it tought to explain those typed memos, unless someone else typed them. Where is the typer?

Why would Lt. Col. Killian, have memos with those kinds of thoughts typed up, by another person? If he was "under pressure" having those documents typed up is a good way to leave the "smoking gun" that gets you relieved.

I'm not buying it.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:03:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:04:15 AM EST
Fuck Dan Rather and the lies he rode in on.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:20:47 AM EST



Oh man! This is rich, watching these guys slowly self-destruct. I wonder how they're going to pull it out of their asses this time.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:36:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By napalm:
I wonder how they're going to pull it out of their asses this time.




They're not!

10 years ago they could've buried it by not printing it.

Today, we've got the internet. And they can't control it.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:23:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By napalm:
I wonder how they're going to pull it out of their asses this time.




They're not!

10 years ago they could've buried it by not printing it.

Today, we've got the internet. And they can't control it.



Amen brother! This is another nail in the coffin of traditional media...
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 7:31:57 AM EST

I just think it would be neat if the FBI investigated it and put a few people in jail for Forgery.


NBC had a former FBI forensic document expert look at these documents his conclusion is… they are a forgery. He was sure.

The top 3 forensic document experts in the country, experts for NBC and ABC have all looked at these documents and concluded they are almost certainly forgeries.

Everybody is wrong and CBS is right… yea right.
Top Top