Everything on TV is fake.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:49:50 -0400, "llortamai"
wrote:

http://www.drudgereport.com/

32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by CBSNEWS 60 MINS on Bush's guard
service may have been forged using a current word processing program.

typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a
superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program, Internet
reports claim... Developing...

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:

Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value.

Then why was CBS so anxious to build their whole case around these
documents?

CBS wasn't making "a case." They had a report. Part of that report was
documents. But the actual knowledge of Bush's military days predates the
CBS report and has nothing to do with the CBS documents.


We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.

That's a claim from a once removed source. Claims as such don't really hold
much water.



It's clear to me that they are when you look at an Selectric II created
document, a computer generated document and the suspect document the two
that line up the best is the computer generated and suspect. It's pretty
clear the suspect documents were created on a computer not a typewriter.


Not to the experts. And you're no expert.

Chemical analysis will prove it the documents are on paper from the
1970's. Bet CBS won't let the documents be submitted to such an analysis.

Now you're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:



It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised "e"'s
can't
be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot of
effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

It violates Occam's Razor. In the absence of extenuating circumstances, the
simplest explanation is the best. Also, the fact that something CAN be
done, is never evidence that it MUST have been done.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters
of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic.
Don't
waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font. What has not been established is if *any*
typewriters
of the time could be used to reproduce what someone
(according
to
NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect document
using
MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how
they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities
that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the
same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with
great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or
no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt
to
artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf (I
downloaded
it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I would
think
it is an artifact from something other than the device that
originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the
first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just his
style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't
already
known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough said - I
think
I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents without
Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was
supposed to
be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture put
together
by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs or no
Killian
docs. That was never really a question. The Killian docs are
interesting, but they don't change much of anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through
the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not
have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to
your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Excuse me, 4 months and 2 days.

Wrong.

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...



ANY windoze word processor should have the same fonts, but I'm not sure
the spacing and kerning would be the same.


Yep. The letters in any TrueType font should look the same.

I'm not an expert in type fonts, but different programs may use somewhat
different kerning. I know PageMaker (A full featured desktop publishing
program) uses different spacing algorithms than Word.

As long as were speculating, a word processor under OS/2 might do a pretty
fair IBM imatation.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:
That's very interesting, thanks! By the way, there's been alot of
speculation about MS Word. Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

But remember that they were made up of dots with only certain possible
positions in the former case, and solid metal in the latter.

Just as a side note, the early versions of Word did *very* bad
"typesetting". It took several versions over several years before they
could produce a decent-looking proportional-spaced document.

--
"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's
war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it, voters
will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war.
I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." -- Jay Leno

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...

They have.



http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_s...ibm_selectr.ht
ml



That's very interesting, thanks! By the way, there's been alot of
speculation about MS Word. Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

Frank Dresser


You must be kidding, you can get just about any font for a word processor.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"RHF" wrote:


You are smarter than this. With the
'right' Computer and Software (snip)



Look, I don't know if the documents are fake or not. However, the
arguments used so far to suggest they are fake (line wrap, character
spacing, and a few superscript characters) are far less than convincing.
With only a photocopy available, chemical analysis of the paper would
probably be useless.

That is obvious to the most casual of observers, the analysis would have
to be done on the original documents. DUH.

And the person who sent photocopies of military
documents to the press is not likely to come forward now to point to the
original documents.

Why not? Do you think they might be afraid they would be made a fool of
if the originals were submitted to analysis?

Until someone can produce the original documents for scrutiny, then I
see no reason not to consider the documents that were distrubited as
possible fakes.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

Gandalf Grey wrote:


Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value.

Then why was CBS so anxious to build their whole case around these
documents?


CBS wasn't making "a case." They had a report. Part of that report was
documents. But the actual knowledge of Bush's military days predates the
CBS report and has nothing to do with the CBS documents.

But CBS and Dan Blater were relying heavily on their forged documents to
support their claims in their report. Now they have egg all over their
faces.

We knew he got in via Barnes.

Barnes's daughter says differently.


That's a claim from a once removed source. Claims as such don't really hold
much water.



That is a claim directly from Barnes' daughter. I heard her on a radio
interview, she has been interview many times.


Chemical analysis will prove it the documents are on paper from the
1970's. Bet CBS won't let the documents be submitted to such an analysis.


Now you're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

Care to clarify that last statement?

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 12:50:34p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:



It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised
"e"'s
can't
be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot
of effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

It violates Occam's Razor. In the absence of extenuating circumstances,
the simplest explanation is the best. Also, the fact that something CAN
be done, is never evidence that it MUST have been done.



The simplest explanation is a forgery produced by MS-Word.

Not as you state it above.




-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)