Michael Bryant wrote:

Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5952048/

... and didn't question their authenticity is well taken. As for the font not
being available in the 70s, the claim is that proportional fonts were not
available until the seventies.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....%5Carchive%5C2
00409%5CPOL20040909d.html

In fact, they've been around since the forties.

http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

A web of unashamed lies is unraveling at a very opportune moment.

Is that like your lies of having a PhD, getting fired from Louisville Technical
Institute, drug bust while at Weber State, etc, etc., etc?

SMELL the
desperation!

Indeed.

dxAce



Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A,
Degen 1102, Degen 1103, GE SRll,
Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nospam" to reply)

"m II" wrote in message
news:ljb0d.85364$S55.36821@clgrps12...

===================================
Composing typewriters


Derogatorily called "Strike-on" composition, the composing typewriter
was used for camera-ready copy in the quick-print business, in academic
publishing, and small weeklies, where cost and turn-around were the
driving factors. The best were capable of proportional spacing,
justification, and handling multiple fonts. The familiar IBM Executive
and Selectric can be considered to be in the low-end of this family; the
IBM Composing Selectric was a computer-driven, auto-justifying, high-end
system.



OK, and how common was such fancy equipment in bureaucratic orginizations in
which pre-printed forms were expected to be filled out with a typwriter with
fixed spacing?

Frank Dresser

dxAce wrote:

Drudge was not resposible for the forged photo.

ROFL!!

You digital brownshirts are a hoot!!

Michael Bryant wrote:

Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...

BZZZZT!! Wrong again mickeyboy, CBS faxed the memos to the White House.
Now go wipe you nose and finish you cookies and milk.

Subject: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
From: Sir Cumference
Date: 9/10/2004 12:15 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Michael Bryant wrote:

Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...

BZZZZT!! Wrong again mickeyboy, CBS faxed the memos to the White House.
Now go wipe you nose and finish you cookies and milk.



LOL!! Why don't you wipe "your" nose and finish "your" cookies and milk.
English and spelling are not your strong point.

Les

Llgpt wrote:

Subject: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
From: Sir Cumference
Date: 9/10/2004 12:15 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Michael Bryant wrote:

Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...

BZZZZT!! Wrong again mickeyboy, CBS faxed the memos to the White House.
Now go wipe you nose and finish you cookies and milk.



LOL!! Why don't you wipe "your" nose and finish "your" cookies and milk.
English and spelling are not your strong point.

But he did get his point across, did he not?

dxAce



Les

Dan wrote:
"Mr. Schnell" Johnie wrote:
It doesn't mean the original documents were fakes. The original documents
after 32 years probably were faded, discolored and not legible. They were
almost certainly reproduced using a Microsoft spread sheet in order to make
them more legible. I see no problem with this.

I see a big problem with this. Such documents are not admissable
evidence. In fact, anything short of direct photocopies is evidence
tampering.

The really big problem is that Microsoft didn't have a spreadsheet program
until after (or at least VERY close to) Killian's death. Microsoft Word
didn't appear until around 1983.

Most likely these documents were made by someone who wasn't alive during
the time Killian was alive.

--
"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

MSH,

FWIW: In the news today the guy's wife is claiming that the
Bush Military Records ?documents? that are attributed to her
dead husband appear to be "FAKES".

* His widow, Marjorie Connell, told ABC News Radio:
"The wording in these documents is very suspect to me.
I just can't believe these are his words."

* "Col Killian's son, Gary Killian, who also served in the
National Guard, said he doubted his father would have written
an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat"
Mr Bush's performance review.

* Rufus Martin, the personnel chief in Col Killian's unit at
the time also said he believed the documents are fake.
"They looked to me like forgeries. I don't think Killian would
do that, and I knew him for 17 years," he said.

* Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the
memos appeared to have been written on a computer with Microsoft
Word software.

* Ms Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy
of Forensic Sciences, highlighted a small superscript "th" in
the words "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron". She said such an
effect was created automatically with Microsoft Word. "I'm
virtually certain these were computer generated," she said.

* Bill Flynn, one of US's top authorities on document
authentication, added: "These documents do not appear to have
been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973."

Source: The Scotsman . Com (UK)
"Bush Vietnam Service Records May Be Fake"
- by Mark Sage, PA News, in New York
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3480214
- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...p-198189c.html
- http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...litics/2787324
- http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...9629371.htm?1c
- http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/top...254080625.html
- http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...0052-8114r.htm


It Must Be True ! - It's in the New York Times (NYT) via the AP
* Authenticity of Bush Memos Scrutinized
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...Questions.html
* Son of Late Officer Questions Bush Memos
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ush-Memos.html


DRUDGE REPORT: CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal
investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES
aired fabricated documents relating to Bush National Guard service,
the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Source= http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=15036
"It's the end of the line, I think, for Dan Rather and 60 Minutes."


So... What's the Frequency Dan ?
{ Id' Rather Not say :-}


Just the Facts ~ RHF
..
..
= = = "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
= = = ...
Michael Bryant wrote:

Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...


The White House got them from CBS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5952048/

... and didn't question their authenticity is well taken. As for the font not
being available in the 70s, the claim is that proportional fonts were not
available until the seventies.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....%5Carchive%5C2
00409%5CPOL20040909d.html

In fact, they've been around since the forties.


Actually, proportional fonts were available in the 30's - but they
weren't common. But the documents in question aren't just proportional,
they're kerned, and they have superscripts with fractional height
letters. That's not a typewriter or vintage word processor. It's
typeset.

Someone said he keyed in one of the documents in Microsoft Word, printed
it out, scanned it in as a graphic and superimposed it on top of the
same document from CBS, and they lined up exactly. Horizontally and
vertically.

This means the default Microsoft Word kerning and line spacing rules
with the default font are identical to the ones used to prepare the
document. For every letter pair, in every line. That's incredible.

But an easy way to get a very strong indication of the validity of the
documents is to get other memos from the same guy that are known to be
real, from the same time frame, and see what they look like.

My guess is they'll look pretty crude compared to the questioned
documents.




http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

A web of unashamed lies is unraveling at a very opportune moment. SMELL the
desperation!


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A,
Degen 1102, Degen 1103, GE SRll,
Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nospam" to reply)
..

Hell his "Honorable Discharge" Might be fake as well?



"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5952048/

... and didn't question their authenticity is well taken. As for the font
not
being available in the 70s, the claim is that proportional fonts were not
available until the seventies.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....%5Carchive%5C2
00409%5CPOL20040909d.html

In fact, they've been around since the forties.

http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

A web of unashamed lies is unraveling at a very opportune moment. SMELL
the
desperation!


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A,
Degen 1102, Degen 1103, GE SRll,
Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nospam" to reply)

Just like Steve LIARe's
"Billybob" wrote in message
...
Hell his "Honorable Discharge" Might be fake as well?



"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5952048/

... and didn't question their authenticity is well taken. As for the
font
not
being available in the 70s, the claim is that proportional fonts were
not
available until the seventies.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....%5Carchive%5C2
00409%5CPOL20040909d.html

In fact, they've been around since the forties.

http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html

A web of unashamed lies is unraveling at a very opportune moment. SMELL
the
desperation!


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A,
Degen 1102, Degen 1103, GE SRll,
Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nospam" to reply)

dxAce wrote:


dxAce wrote:


Llgpt wrote:


Subject: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
From: Sir Cumference
Date: 9/10/2004 12:15 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Michael Bryant wrote:


Regarding the charge that the fonts prove the documents are fake:

BZZZZT! Try again. The White House distributed the memos ...

BZZZZT!! Wrong again mickeyboy, CBS faxed the memos to the White House.
Now go wipe you nose and finish you cookies and milk.



LOL!! Why don't you wipe "your" nose and finish "your" cookies and milk.
English and spelling are not your strong point.

But he did get his point across, did he not?


Here's an example: Les Locklear fax's me fake documents. I release said
documents to the public, indicating that they came from Les Locklear.

How does/or would that make me responsible in any way for the fact that they
were fakes?

Depends upon if you are touting the information in those documents as
being true are not. If you are touting the contents of the documents as
truth, you should be verifying the validy of the documents.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 11:28:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 09 Sep 2004 08:56:46p, "llortamai"
wrote in message
:

"Retarded Death Row Inmates 4 Bush" wrote in
message om...
dream on.

You wish you could dream it was false, but the articles keep coming.
Here's another one.

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/...asp?idArticle=
459
6 &R=9FCD2F192

Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a Kerry
supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these documents were
not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM

{snippage}


I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some lines about,
offering to pay for similar information and by doing so, set
themselves
up
for getting "werked"!

If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further indication that
60 minutes was willing to take the info and run without validating it.

Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own stafers:
Blinded by Bias!

-=jd=-

And you're certainly not biased JD.

It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story without a
fairly strenuous attempt to validate the documents. They might have
been wrong and it might turn out that the docs are plants, but 60
Minutes is regularly challenged by all quarters and I've got a feeling
that they go out of their way to vet anything they present as
"evidence."


From what I heard on the Radio (NPR), they asked the usual line of
questions, but didn't run the document past any typographers

then they lied.

(who would
have thought to?).

People who are regularly sued such as CBS.

In any event, I would be willing to bet that in the
future, if they are handed "the document of their dreams" similar to the
case at hand, it *will* get a typographical appraisal!


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

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 09:33:32p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 11:28:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 09 Sep 2004 08:56:46p, "llortamai"
wrote in message
:

"Retarded Death Row Inmates 4 Bush" wrote
in message
om...
dream on.

You wish you could dream it was false, but the articles keep
coming. Here's another one.

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/...r_preview.asp?
idArticle=
459
6 &R=9FCD2F192

Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a
Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these
documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM

{snippage}


I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some lines
about, offering to pay for similar information and by doing so, set
themselves
up
for getting "werked"!

If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further indication
that 60 minutes was willing to take the info and run without
validating it.

Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own
stafers: Blinded by Bias!

-=jd=-

And you're certainly not biased JD.

It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story without a
fairly strenuous attempt to validate the documents. They might have
been wrong and it might turn out that the docs are plants, but 60
Minutes is regularly challenged by all quarters and I've got a
feeling that they go out of their way to vet anything they present as
"evidence."


From what I heard on the Radio (NPR), they asked the usual line of
questions, but didn't run the document past any typographers

then they lied.


/sarcasm on
My bad - Who are we to question the integrity of (ahem) "unbiased" NPR or
60-Minutes reporters?
/sarcasm off

I don't care if they're CBS or CNN or FOX or NPR. If they lied they lied.
CBS Stated that the documents had been reviewed by independent document
authorities. Go to cbsnews.com.

Now I'm used to lies and near lies from FOX but I've got to hold CBS to a
higher standard because it is supposed to be actual News. 60 Minutes is
even advertised as a New program. So if they didn't get those documents
reviewed by bona fide experts, then they LIED.



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

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

On 11 Sep 2004 01:12:04 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


So, yes - I *am* undoubtably biased: more than some, less than others. I
am also darn near dead-center according to a political leaning test
several of us took in here. So, if I look extreme-right from your vantage
point, you reveal the location of your vantage point:
( ---- it's back in that direction; some distance from the center )

I'm perfectly in the center. Take a look at my posts.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some lines about,
offering to pay for similar information and by doing so, set themselves
up
for getting "werked"!

If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further indication that 60
minutes was willing to take the info and run without validating it.

Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own stafers:
Blinded by Bias!

-=jd=-

And you're certainly not biased JD.

It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story without a fairly
strenuous attempt to validate the documents. They might have been wrong and
it might turn out that the docs are plants, but 60 Minutes is regularly
challenged by all quarters and I've got a feeling that they go out of their
way to vet anything they present as "evidence."

CBS said they submitted the documents to extensive examination by
experts before 'running' with the story, but nothing will convince the
conspiracy types.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"Paolo Pizzi" wrote:

Greg wrote:

BTW - Drudge is often right.

Suuuuuuuuuuure, that's the guy who photomontaged Kerry
besides Jane Fonda. ****ing neofascist slimebag liar!!

Kerry was there. Was on the list of speakers, is in the FBI reports.
Nice try.

The photograph he is referring to has been proven to be a fake. The real
one shows Kerry sitting in a group behind Fonda, not standing next to
her.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

-=jd=- wrote:

On Thu 09 Sep 2004 04:43:50p, "Mr. N" wrote in

What if it *isn't* fake?


Then we may have found a clue that someone traveled thru time, armed with the
"Times New Roman" font set developed in the 80's, with the ability to use
them on a circa 1972 manual or electric typewriter!

Has *anyone* notified the Discovery Science channel yet !?!?

-=jd=-

The 'Times New Roman' font has been used since 1931 according to
typography experts.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
longwave wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"Paolo Pizzi" wrote:

Greg wrote:

BTW - Drudge is often right.

Suuuuuuuuuuure, that's the guy who photomontaged Kerry
besides Jane Fonda. ****ing neofascist slimebag liar!!

Kerry was there. Was on the list of speakers, is in the FBI reports.
Nice try.

The photograph he is referring to has been proven to be a fake. The real
one shows Kerry sitting in a group behind Fonda, not standing next to
her.

Well the photograph I'm referring to is not a fake. Kerry was there
according to the FBI reports as I said.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
longwave wrote:

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some lines about,
offering to pay for similar information and by doing so, set themselves
up
for getting "werked"!

If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further indication that 60
minutes was willing to take the info and run without validating it.

Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own stafers:
Blinded by Bias!

-=jd=-

And you're certainly not biased JD.

It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story without a fairly
strenuous attempt to validate the documents. They might have been wrong and
it might turn out that the docs are plants, but 60 Minutes is regularly
challenged by all quarters and I've got a feeling that they go out of their
way to vet anything they present as "evidence."

CBS said they submitted the documents to extensive examination by
experts before 'running' with the story, but nothing will convince the
conspiracy types.

They are full of it. They also said if any information to the contrary
was available they would show it and they have not.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
longwave wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

On Thu 09 Sep 2004 04:43:50p, "Mr. N" wrote
in

What if it *isn't* fake?


Then we may have found a clue that someone traveled thru time, armed with
the
"Times New Roman" font set developed in the 80's, with the ability to use
them on a circa 1972 manual or electric typewriter!

Has *anyone* notified the Discovery Science channel yet !?!?

-=jd=-

The 'Times New Roman' font has been used since 1931 according to
typography experts.

There is more to it than that. Time will tell.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Dan wrote:
On 11 Sep 2004 01:42:56 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


In addition to the questionable typographics, we even have the wife,
son and others who worked with the purported author saying they are
suspicious of the documents for a variety of reasons.

I think *this* is the most important evidence of why these documents
are fake. These documents are purported to come from his "personal"
files, yet neither the son nor the widow are the source. Where did
they come from? How do you obtain "personal" files from someone
other than a family member?

Dan


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake. The White House released Months and years ago other documents withthe same
typographical characteristics. How do these so called document "experts" explain that ?

"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


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

The spacing in the characters is impossible
on a purely mechanical device. You're
talking a *thousand* possible combinations,
you have to remember the preceding
characters and generate the spacing
dynamically as each character is typed.

And the words themselves are spaced,
which is *millions* of combinations.

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Mr. Schnell wrote:

"Granger" wrote in message
news:WF10d.136482$4o.10407@fed1read01...

Ya right!


It doesn't mean the original documents were fakes. The original
documents
after 32 years probably were faded, discolored and not legible.

Huh? I have documents much older than that that are perfectly legible.
There is no reason these 32 year old docs should not be legible.

They were
almost certainly reproduced using a Microsoft spread sheet in order to
make
them more legible.

So why attempt to reproduce them exactly if all you want is to get the
wording of the documents. Just explain, the documents have been retyped
word for word for legibility.

I have become disallusioned wuth American politics. Vote for Nader.

Subject: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
From: "Isle Of The Dead"
Date: 9/11/2004 12:46 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: "Isle Of The Dead"
et


"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


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

The spacing in the characters is impossible
on a purely mechanical device. You're
talking a *thousand* possible combinations,
you have to remember the preceding
characters and generate the spacing
dynamically as each character is typed.

And the words themselves are spaced,
which is *millions* of combinations.





"Isle Of The Dead" & "Dude"

Kinda figures doesn't it?

Another generation X'er who can't speak english.

Les

"Llgpt" wrote in message
...
Subject: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
From: "Isle Of The Dead"
Date: 9/11/2004 12:46 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: "Isle Of The Dead"
et


"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


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

The spacing in the characters is impossible
on a purely mechanical device. You're
talking a *thousand* possible combinations,
you have to remember the preceding
characters and generate the spacing
dynamically as each character is typed.

And the words themselves are spaced,
which is *millions* of combinations.





"Isle Of The Dead" & "Dude"

Kinda figures doesn't it?

Another generation X'er who can't speak english.

Kinda? (e)nglish? ;)

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 10:40:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 09:33:32p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 11:28:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 09 Sep 2004 08:56:46p, "llortamai"
wrote in message
:

"Retarded Death Row Inmates 4 Bush"
wrote in message
om...
dream on.

You wish you could dream it was false, but the articles keep
coming. Here's another one.

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/...r_preview.asp?
idArticle=
459
6 &R=9FCD2F192

Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a
Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these
documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM

{snippage}


I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some lines
about, offering to pay for similar information and by doing so,
set themselves
up
for getting "werked"!

If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further indication
that 60 minutes was willing to take the info and run without
validating it.

Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own
stafers: Blinded by Bias!

-=jd=-

And you're certainly not biased JD.

It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story without
a fairly strenuous attempt to validate the documents. They might
have been wrong and it might turn out that the docs are plants,
but 60 Minutes is regularly challenged by all quarters and I've
got a feeling that they go out of their way to vet anything they
present as "evidence."


From what I heard on the Radio (NPR), they asked the usual line of
questions, but didn't run the document past any typographers

then they lied.


/sarcasm on
My bad - Who are we to question the integrity of (ahem) "unbiased" NPR
or 60-Minutes reporters?
/sarcasm off

I don't care if they're CBS or CNN or FOX or NPR. If they lied they
lied. CBS Stated that the documents had been reviewed by independent
document authorities. Go to cbsnews.com.

Now I'm used to lies and near lies from FOX but I've got to hold CBS to
a higher standard because it is supposed to be actual News. 60 Minutes
is even advertised as a New program. So if they didn't get those
documents reviewed by bona fide experts, then they LIED.


Then I agree with you as I also don't find it hard to believe that the
staff of 60-Minutes distorted, exaggerated, manipulated, slanted or
otherwise lied about the information they present.

I didn't say that. What I said was that if they lied there's a very
specific sense in which they lied. When you say you've had documents
examined by experts, and you didn't....you LIED. Britt Hume on FOX ran a
little experiment with someone else in the studio which he said made the
docs look fishy. That's fine. If FOX then turned around and said they had
"experts" examine the docs, referring to Hume's experiment, it would be a
knowing, direct LIE.

That's what I'm saying. Now CBS is on record as stating that the docs were
examined by experts. That's a falsifiable claim. They either did or they
didn't.


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

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 03:13:25p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 10:40:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 09:33:32p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 11:28:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 09 Sep 2004 08:56:46p, "llortamai"
wrote in message
:

"Retarded Death Row Inmates 4 Bush"
wrote in message
om...
dream on.

You wish you could dream it was false, but the articles
keep coming. Here's another one.

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/...r_preview.asp?
idArticle=
459
6 &R=9FCD2F192

Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one:
"I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that
these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM

{snippage}


I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some
lines about, offering to pay for similar information and by
doing so, set themselves
up
for getting "werked"!

If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further
indication that 60 minutes was willing to take the info and
run without validating it.

Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own
stafers: Blinded by Bias!

-=jd=-

And you're certainly not biased JD.

It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story
without a fairly strenuous attempt to validate the documents.
They might have been wrong and it might turn out that the docs
are plants, but 60 Minutes is regularly challenged by all
quarters and I've got a feeling that they go out of their way
to vet anything they present as "evidence."


From what I heard on the Radio (NPR), they asked the usual line
of questions, but didn't run the document past any typographers

then they lied.


/sarcasm on
My bad - Who are we to question the integrity of (ahem) "unbiased"
NPR or 60-Minutes reporters?
/sarcasm off

I don't care if they're CBS or CNN or FOX or NPR. If they lied they
lied. CBS Stated that the documents had been reviewed by independent
document authorities. Go to cbsnews.com.

Now I'm used to lies and near lies from FOX but I've got to hold CBS
to a higher standard because it is supposed to be actual News. 60
Minutes is even advertised as a New program. So if they didn't get
those documents reviewed by bona fide experts, then they LIED.


Then I agree with you as I also don't find it hard to believe that the
staff of 60-Minutes distorted, exaggerated, manipulated, slanted or
otherwise lied about the information they present.

I didn't say that. What I said was that if they lied there's a very
specific sense in which they lied. When you say you've had documents
examined by experts, and you didn't....you LIED. Britt Hume on FOX ran
a little experiment with someone else in the studio which he said made
the docs look fishy. That's fine. If FOX then turned around and said
they had "experts" examine the docs, referring to Hume's experiment, it
would be a knowing, direct LIE.

That's what I'm saying. Now CBS is on record as stating that the docs
were examined by experts. That's a falsifiable claim. They either did
or they didn't.



If that's what you mena, then opinions will certainly vary, and I'm
willing to bet that the majority of opinions will not be in favor of the
"60-minutes" staffers.

1. I don't care about the opinions.
2. It's not a matter of opinions. CBS either used experts or they didn't.
If they used them, a paper trail will exist.


I can imagine that CBS will, with all due righteous indignation, refuse to
admit any error in due-diligence or thoroughness simply by re-defining
terms. Their definition of an "expert forensic document examiner" may be:
"Joe Dude" who works in the CBS IT department and is certified to fix
laser-printers...

I haven't heard that yet and neither have you.


If Hume wants to define his experiment as "expert analysis", then he has
as much of a credibility problem as the staff of "60-minutes".

Exactly the point. The question is "what is an expert." When you say you
used "experts in the authentification of documents" that's a real thing.
Sothby's and Christie's uses such experts. Such experts have certifications
and qualifications. It's not a matter of opinion. If, say, you use a
handwriting analyst to authenticate the typing in a document, you're lying
when you say you've authenticated the document. If you say you've used an
expert on MS Word to authenticate a typed document, you've lied.



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

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

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!

"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.

Dan wrote:
These things are such obvious fakes that, if CBS had *any* integrity
left at all, Dan Rather should be fired on the spot.

The lies continue and compound.

http://progresssivetrail.org/articles/040911Peralta.shtml says,
"1. Times New Roman Fonts did not exist in 1972.

"The Times New Roman font was developed in 1931 by Stanley Morison,
Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation who adapted the
font to the IBM selectric [sic] Typewriter in 1947."

The font *may* have been developed in 1931; Morison was NOT advisor to
Monotype Corporation, but to the Times (newspaper) of London. Victor
Lardent of the Times actually drew the original design.

The IBM Selectric [tm] Typewriter was introduced in 1961. To my knowledge,
there was never a proportional-space version of the Selectric. Certainly
the mechanics of the Selectric would have made proportional spacing
very difficult if not impossible.

--
"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

longwave wrote:
CBS said they submitted the documents to extensive examination by
experts before 'running' with the story, but nothing will convince the
conspiracy types.

They've changed that story already. Now it's that they had people familiar
with the documents' content, and they checked with a handwriting expert.

--
"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

longwave wrote:
The 'Times New Roman' font has been used since 1931 according to
typography experts.

Yes, it has. But not by people using typewriters. I myself used Times
New Roman in the middle seventies -- on an Alphatype cold typesetting
machine which could only "print" on film or photographic print paper.
Hell, the Times didn't even release rights to others to use the font
until 1933.

--
"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

"-=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.


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

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=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.

If people can type up the document on a computer and it lines up with
the documents in question then they are fake documents.

The proportional font on a typewriter will be different than on a
computer. The computer font will change its spacing depending on the
arrangement of the letters and justification. This can't be done on a
fixed key system where the spacing is fixed. The typewriter document can
look the same but the letters will not line up the same way.

Lazy forger should have gotten a typewriter to do the job instead of a
computer.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

"-=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.

If people can type up the document on a computer and it lines up with
the documents in question then they are fake documents.

And anyone can look at the documents and see that it wouldn't line up.

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.

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

gy.com.. .
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=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.

If people can type up the document on a computer and it lines up
with the documents in question then they are fake documents.

And anyone can look at the documents and see that it wouldn't line
up.

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.

The report is that they do line up. Can you point me to a link where I
can see it myself?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

"Telamon" wrote in
message

gy.com.. .
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=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.

If people can type up the document on a computer and it lines up
with the documents in question then they are fake documents.

And anyone can look at the documents and see that it wouldn't line
up.

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.

The report is that they do line up. Can you point me to a link where I
can see it myself?

Actually, you can probably point yourself to a magnifying glass and see it
for yourself by printing the docs off of www.cbsnews.com


--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"-=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.

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

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

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

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 10:31:02p, Telamon
wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-8B0BF2.19310111092004@newssvr21-
ext.news.prodigy.com:

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

gy.com.. .

If people can type up the document on a computer and it lines up
with the documents in question then they are fake documents.

And anyone can look at the documents and see that it wouldn't line
up.

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.

The report is that they do line up. Can you point me to a link where I
can see it myself?



Ask and ye shall receive... It's a bit down the page under the heading:
"One More CBS Document Example"

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php


This is just what I expected to see. Looks like the documents are faked
on a computer.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=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.

Try again yourself. The "a" letters in several words were affected the
same way.

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

You believe what you want. They match up all to well. If you go to other
sites in the links you can see what the best of the IBM typewriter of
the time can do reproducing the memo's and you can see for yourself that
they match up far worse than the suspect documents and their computer
generated brethren with the character misalignments I expected to find.

Not to mention that nobody in their right mind would go through the
gymnastics need to create the superscript of just a few characters in
the document. The "th" would have been just regular typed letters.

If you were writing a math paper where the superscript was part of a
formula you might but not in a memo such as this.

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

These "docs" do portray Bush in a more negative light. I don't care if
they are real but I do care if they are fake because then someone is
trying to smear the President.

It's pretty clear that they are forgeries.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California