"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 15 Sep 2004 09:29:18a, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote in message
ink.net:

"-=jd=-" wrote:

I'll base mine on information from the
leading expert in the field (Dr. Bouffard)
and the success of rank amateurs in
reproducing the document. You can
base your opinion on... umm...
whatever...


My own eyes and a little common sense. You talk about "rank amateurs"
reproducing documents and use that as the basis to say the documents are
fake. All that tells me, instead, is that "rank amateurs" can fake
documents. That certainly doesn't prove to me these particular documents
are fake.

Further, I simply don't agree with your assessment of the documents
produced by those "rank amateurs." Their work does not look like the
documents in question. Their documents were clearly produced on a
computer, while the documents in question were clearly produced on a
typewriter.

Finally, the contents of the documents in question, including military
document layout, dates, events, and signatures, all match what we know
of the situation at the time. That would be very difficult to fake
without intimate knowledge of each of those (a lot harder than some
"rank amatuers" simply copying what they see on a document in front of
them).

In other words, you'll have to work a lot harder if you want to
convince
me those documents are fake.

Stewart



Convincing anyone is none of my concern, but I do reserve the right to
wonder aloud how a reasonable and prudent person would ignore the mounting
list of indicators pointing to obvious forgeries.

You mean pointed out by freepers within literally minutes of their being
seen on television?

Hardly the sort of reaction designed to fill me with a sense of trust toward
the actual origin of those documents.

This has Rove's smell all over it, and your posting is proof that it's
definitely drawing flies.