RadioBanter - '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)

- - '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/44452-60-minutes-documents-bush-might-fake.html)

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.

"-=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