Let's just say the documents

[Tux of Borg]

CNN Article

 

Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript -- a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" -- as evidence indicating forgery.

 

What amateurs... using Microsoft Word to forge a document.

[Brandon]

I have zero idea whether or not the documents are fake. I do NOT trust 60 Minutes for a second, and haven't for 25 years. They are slimeballs there, IMO. To date, there is zero evidence or proof that that are fake.

 

But...

 

If they WERE fake... and someone went to extraordinary lengths to fake them... unless they were TOTAL MORONS (which, of course, is possible)... they would have used the name of a cop who was there at the time.

 

This story of the cop almost lends more credence to the documents validity, when the real story of the cop comes out, as much as it may discount it.

26741[/snapback]

 

There's plenty of evidence that they're fake. Its all a matter of whether one finds that evidence credible or not. Personally, I think the fact that I can (and have) make an exact copy of it using my MS word at default settings, among other issues, is pretty damning, at least to me. Equally damaging is the fact that everyone who knew Killian first hand and are some way tied to this story appear to be denying their authenticity. Its not a closed-case just yet, but to this point, I'm fairly convinced that they are fake.

 

My gut feeling on it is that this was cooked up by some low-level DNC staffer (with some pretty marginal forgery skills, I might add) who thought he/she/it would be doing the party a big favor. I actually don't hold it against the Kerry campaign or the DNC for that reason (I haven't seen any evidence yet that anyone at the top was involved), but I suspect it will hurt them.

[Kelly the Dog]

There's plenty of evidence that they're fake.  Its all a matter of whether one finds that evidence credible or not.  Personally,  I think the fact that I can (and have) make an exact copy of it using my MS word at default settings,  among other issues,  is pretty damning, at least to me.  Equally damaging is the fact that everyone who knew Killian first hand and are some way tied to this story appear to be denying their authenticity.  Its not a closed-case just yet,  but to this point,  I'm fairly convinced that they are fake. 

 

My gut feeling on it is that this was cooked up by some low-level DNC staffer (with some pretty marginal forgery skills,  I might add) who thought he/she/it would be doing the party a big favor.  I actually don't hold it against the Kerry campaign or the DNC for that reason (I haven't seen any evidence yet that anyone at the top was involved),  but I suspect it will hurt them.

26753[/snapback]

No, there is zero evidence, so far, that they are fake. The fact that someone else may almost duplicate the documents (all of which, so far, have been debunked, BTW) is zero evidence that these documents were faked.

[MichFan]

No, there is zero evidence, so far, that they are fake. The fact that someone else may almost duplicate the documents (all of which, so far, have been debunked, BTW) is zero evidence that these documents were faked.

 

It's pretty hard to prove they are fake when CBS is holding on to them and doesn't feel an investigation is needed, when their handwriting expert is the final authority as to whether this typed document is authentic, and when there appears to be no availability of an original is for age-testing. To me, this suggests they are fake unless proven authentic. The fact that any testing that has done from copies of the document readily shows clear problems with authenticity, and that CBS' defense of the documents contains factual problems, just furthers the liklihood that they are indeed fake.

 

Funny thing is I don't care if they are authentic or not when it comes to Bush's candidacy. There was nothing earth-shattering in that 60 Minutes story. Bush has already conceded that Kerry's service was more honorable than his. All this line of attack does is make the public at-large feel like the Kerry campaign is trying to pile-on to an advantage readily forfeited by their opponent. It looks tacky and desparate.

[MichFan]

Let me also add that it has been revealed that Ben Barnes, who is the key figure in Rather's story, is a Kerry insider and fund-raiser. Astonishingly enough, Dan Rather's daughter works with Ben Barnes and the Democratic fund-raiser that Rather got in hot water for attending a few years ago was in Ben Barnes' district. This just has stink all over it.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's pretty hard to prove they are fake when CBS is holding on to them and doesn't feel an investigation is needed, when their handwriting expert is the final authority as to whether this typed document is authentic, and when there appears to be no availability of an original is for age-testing.  To me, this suggests they are fake unless proven authentic.  The fact that any testing that has done from copies of the document readily shows clear problems with authenticity, and that CBS' defense of the documents contains factual problems, just furthers the liklihood that they are indeed fake.

 

Funny thing is I don't care if they are authentic or not when it comes to Bush's candidacy.  There was nothing earth-shattering in that 60 Minutes story.  Bush has already conceded that Kerry's service was more honorable than his.  All this line of attack does is make the public at-large feel like the Kerry campaign is trying to pile-on to an advantage readily forfeited by their opponent.  It looks tacky and desparate.

26765[/snapback]

 

 

True, it doesn't change much. Everyone, including you, knows that Bush received preferential treatment to get into the Guard like a lot of people did, was a pretty good pilot, and didn't show up when he was supposed to for a lot of unimportant things, and then lied about it. The only difference is how much any one person is willing to admit to, depending on your political bent.

 

Both sides look tacky and desperate in equal measures: Totally.

[IUBillsFan]

Another story on this subject...

 

Story

[MichFan]

...then lied about it. The only difference is how much any one person is willing to admit to, depending on your political bent.

 

Both sides look tacky and desperate in equal measures: Totally.

 

I don't know that Bush has lied about anything. Being vague does not equal lying, it just leads one to believe there is something more than what has been revealed. I think Bush is handling it rather well by staying above the fray.

[DC Tom]

Has anyone yet managed to point out that '60s vintage typewriters and modern computers print to paper differently? A typewriter uses impact printing, ink- or laser-jet doesn't. Ergo, a typewriter disrupts the fiber of the paper around the letter, and will show clear evidence of the impact. The ink's different too...typewriters use a ribbon, ink- and laser-jets use dyes.

 

So is this whole discussion simply about fonts? Or has anyone done any real work looking into the issue?

[Alaska Darin]

Has anyone yet managed to point out that '60s vintage typewriters and modern computers print to paper differently?  A typewriter uses impact printing, ink- or laser-jet doesn't.  Ergo, a typewriter disrupts the fiber of the paper around the letter, and will show clear evidence of the impact.  The ink's different too...typewriters use a ribbon, ink- and laser-jets use dyes.

 

So is this whole discussion simply about fonts?  Or has anyone done any real work looking into the issue? 

26819[/snapback]

Are these things being passed off as originals or copies?

[DC Tom]

Are these things being passed off as originals or copies?

26822[/snapback]

 

Don't know...but if they're copies, I'd consider them BS no matter what they were copies of.

 

I'd still think some of the differences between impact and jet printing would show up in copies anyway. I'll check when I get to the office Monday.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Has anyone yet managed to point out that '60s vintage typewriters and modern computers print to paper differently?  A typewriter uses impact printing, ink- or laser-jet doesn't.  Ergo, a typewriter disrupts the fiber of the paper around the letter, and will show clear evidence of the impact.  The ink's different too...typewriters use a ribbon, ink- and laser-jets use dyes.

 

So is this whole discussion simply about fonts?  Or has anyone done any real work looking into the issue? 

26819[/snapback]

 

There was a forensic analyst being interviewd that with old typerwriters there was equal spacing. Meaning an "I" took up as much space as a "M." The document in question adjusted these spaces, just a s modern word processors do. Though there was a typerwiter on the market back then that could do this, it wasn't widely used, especially in government. And where was this document four years ago? Maybe it hadn't been invented yet.

[Tux of Borg]

Has anyone yet managed to point out that '60s vintage typewriters and modern computers print to paper differently?  A typewriter uses impact printing, ink- or laser-jet doesn't.  Ergo, a typewriter disrupts the fiber of the paper around the letter, and will show clear evidence of the impact.  The ink's different too...typewriters use a ribbon, ink- and laser-jets use dyes.

 

So is this whole discussion simply about fonts?  Or has anyone done any real work looking into the issue? 

26819[/snapback]

 

 

The font argument came from there being two different types of fonts in the document. More specifically, the "th" in the "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" was raised up. This was something that typewriters at that time could not do. However, something that is done automatically inside of Microsoft Word.

 

If the font doesn't fit... then you must acquit!

[IUBillsFan]

The font argument came from there being two different types of fonts in the document.  More specifically, the "th" in the "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" was raised up.  This was something that typewriters at that time could not do.  However, something that is done automatically inside of Microsoft Word. 

 

If the font doesn't fit... then you must acquit! 

26849[/snapback]

 

Not exactly correct. They could do the superscript but it was a five or six step process...

[SilverNRed]

Are these things being passed off as originals or copies?

26822[/snapback]

 

I believe CBS claims to have copies of the supposed original documents.

[SD Jarhead]

Here's a question I have yet to hear asked...If Killians wife and son didn't give the 'documents' to CBS and dispute their authenticity then where did they come from? Rather reported that they were from LtCol. Killian's personal files, so who had Killians personal files?

 

The longer CBS tries to rationalize this away the more credibility they lose.

 

What I can't understand is how the libbers can't see what a joke their party is and how desperate they've become.

[SilverNRed]

Here's a question I have yet to hear asked...If Killians wife and son didn't give the 'documents' to CBS and dispute their authenticity then where did they come from? Rather reported that they were from LtCol. Killian's personal files, so who had Killians personal files?

26899[/snapback]

 

Actually, a lot of people have been asking that. But CBS won't reveal their sources.

 

Gosh, wonder why.......

[IUBillsFan]

Here's a question I have yet to hear asked...If Killians wife and son didn't give the 'documents' to CBS and dispute their authenticity then where did they come from? Rather reported that they were from LtCol. Killian's personal files, so who had Killians personal files?

 

The longer CBS tries to rationalize this away the more credibility they lose.

 

What I can't understand is how the libbers can't see what a joke their party is and how desperate they've become.

26899[/snapback]

 

I saw a quote from the widow and she said his files are in her basement and nobody asked her for anything.

[blzrul]

If the entire basis for the claim of forgery is the superscripted "th", that's pathetic.

 

Anyone who typed in the 60's and 70's on an IBM selectric (which was pretty much the only machine you'd find in offices) knows that there were typing elements (those little typing balls) that contained those symbols. You simply stopped typing, popped off the standard ball and popped on the symbol ball. Or there were special elements made with those symbols on them replacing the uppercases on the number keys, for certain industries that needed them, for example in scientific notation and the like.

 

The documents were given by someone to the network - they didn't file a lawsuit and then pull the papers out of their OWN files. They had them inspected. So if they are forgeries the network did its due diligence.

 

But again, if it's just the "th" the Bushistas as clutching at straws. I know from personal experience that you could get that symbol with no trouble on a Selectric or any typewriter with a changeable element. Only the typewriters with keys were a pain, you had to stop, roll the platen up a half a line, then type, and the letters would be full sized. On the element they were superscripted and small.

[Thurman's Helmet]

Yet you (libs) all swallowed "it depends on what the definition of is is" hook line and sinker. Funny how you backtrack when it suits your purpose.

 

 

 

If the entire basis for the claim of forgery is the superscripted "th", that's pathetic.

 

Anyone who typed in the 60's and 70's on an IBM selectric (which was pretty much the only machine you'd find in offices) knows that there were typing elements (those little typing balls) that contained those symbols.  You simply stopped typing, popped off the standard ball and popped on the symbol ball.  Or there were special elements made with those symbols on them replacing the uppercases on the number keys, for certain industries that needed them, for example in scientific notation and the like.

 

The documents were given by someone to the network - they didn't file a lawsuit and then pull the papers out of their OWN files.  They had them inspected.  So if they are forgeries the network did its due diligence.

 

But again, if it's just the "th" the Bushistas as clutching at straws. I know from personal experience that you could get that symbol with no trouble on a Selectric or any typewriter with a changeable element.  Only the typewriters with keys were a pain, you had to stop, roll the platen up a half a line, then type, and the letters would be full sized.  On the element they were superscripted and small.

26959[/snapback]