'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by rpm371
I guess we have to take Rip's word. This guy "supposedly" owns an IBM typewriter and a computer graphics program. He "allegedly" could not "reproduce" the memo.  Rock Solid reporting there! CASE CLOSED!

I threw that in as an afterthought, but feel free to ignore the gist of my post:
Great. Now, how do you account for the Killian memo having the wrong deadline, and citing the wrong regulation.?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3833

[ra]

It's no use arguing, we'll get to the bottom of this once CBS finishes its internal investigation.



















Oh, wait, CBS ISN'T INVESTIGATING THIS!

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Nash
Good.

So you're saying that the only thing that may somehow disprove this document, and by extention this whole BS fraud claim, is the lack of any sign of whiteout or tape in this bad photocopy?

Hardly.

I'm saying that we can only guess as to the date the document you posted was actually typed.

I think what Rip just posted should create some question as to the validity of the "BS fraud claim" in the mind of any reasonable person.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by ra
It's no use arguing, we'll get to the bottom of this once CBS finishes its internal investigation.



















Oh, wait, CBS ISN'T INVESTIGATING THIS!

[Nash]

Heh.....

Take a PDF of a photocopy of a photocopy of an original and expect there to be no distortion... But there is.... so then try to match that distortion on a completely different typewriter than what the original document was created on.

I would be amazed if it did work and everything lined up. 1 in a million if even possible.

But so what? The technology to create the "fraudulent" document existed at the time that the document was created. Seems like a moot point to me.

[TheDudeDVant]

Ockam's Razor was it??

[Nash]

Originally posted by AKIron
Hardly.

I'm saying that we can only guess as to the date the document you posted was actually typed.

This shouldn't be hard to find out.

Can anyone here tell us if this type of document was created all at once, or updated?

I know the media is reporting it as being updated, and that the entry for '68 was typed in '68... and that the White House isn't denying that.... but maybe your theory is true?

Again - it's a bit moot - because it was possible to do the raised "th" in '68 no matter if you choose not to see the evidence in this particular document.

Originally posted by AKIron
I think what Rip just posted should create some question as to the validity of the "BS fraud claim" in the mind of any reasonable person.

"Hardly".

[rpm]

Originally posted by ra
It's no use arguing, we'll get to the bottom of this once CBS finishes its internal investigation.

Oh, wait, CBS ISN'T INVESTIGATING THIS!

Oh, wait, CBS INVESTIGATED THIS BEFORE REPORTING!

[AKIron]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Ockam's Razor was it??

1. His son (also an ANG Officer) said it was out of character and believed it to be a forgery.

2. His wife said she thought it was a forgery (I think)

3. CBS can't or won't prove it could have come from a 1972 typewriter (very easy to do if possible imo)

4. CBS won't reveal their source

5. Dates and referenced AFM in these documents were inccorrect

Hmmm, thinking ole Bill of Occam would go with the forgery on this one.

[ra]

Originally posted by rpm371
Oh, wait, CBS INVESTIGATED THIS BEFORE REPORTING!

As Tammy Wynette said:

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times
And he'll have good times
Doin things that you don't understand
But if you love him
You'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him
Oh, be proud of him
Cause after all he's just a man

Stand by your man
Give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
when nights are cold and lonely

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

Stand by your man
And show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can
Stand by your man

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by AKIron
1. His son (also an ANG Officer) said it was out of character and believed it to be a forgery.

2. His wife said she thought it was a forgery (I think)

3. CBS can't or won't prove it could have come from a 1972 typewriter (very easy to do if possible imo)

4. CBS won't reveal their source

5. Dates and referenced AFM in these documents were inccorrect

Hmmm, thinking ole Bill of Occam would go with the forgery on this one.

1. His son??
2. You think??
3. Perhaps they already have.
4. Why should they?
5. I do not know about this.

Occam, Ockham or Ockam.. I have seen all the above used.

You accept the 5 criteria, 2 of which are his family and not sure about both, above the most obvious conclusion that the the docs are real? Humm.. I'm not so certain Bill would agree given no more evidence than presented.. Perhaps if the type was impossible. But, fortunatly it was not an impossibility.

[Ripsnort]

Hehehehehe! Time for those tinfoil hats, Kappa, Nash

MEANWHILE, OVER THE WEEKEND journalists from around the country were attempting to track down the original source of the documents. "We're having a hard time tracking how we got the documents," says the CBS News producer. "There are at least two people in this building who have insisted we got copies of these memos from the Kerry campaign by way of an additional source. We do not have the originals, and our sources have indicated to us that we will not be getting the originals. How that is possible I don't know."

[snip]

PERHAPS MOST TROUBLING to the CBS News staff looking into how its story went off the rails is the timing of the memos' appearance. "Some 60 Minutes staffers have been working on this story for more than three years off and on," says the CBS News producer. "There have been rumors about these memos and what was in them for at least that long. No one had been able to find anything. Not a single piece of paper. But we know that a lot of people here interviewed a lot of people in Texas and elsewhere and asked very explicit questions about the existence of these memos. Then all of a sudden they show up? In one nice, neat package?"

This CBS New producer went on to explain that the questions 60 Minutes folk were asking were specific enough that people would have been able to fabricate the memorandums to meet the exact specifications the investigative journalists were looking for.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7099

[AKIron]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
1. His son??

Yes: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2787324

2. You think??

Yes, she said the "records" are a farce and that her husband did not keep files during a telephone interview. Heard this on television. Look it up yourself.

3. Perhaps they already have.

Right, they just don't care about their credibility and so aren't offering this evidence?
 
4. Why should they?

Well, maybe for the same reason you asked for mine?

5. I do not know about this.

Read Rips link and decide for yourself.
Occam, Ockham or Ockam.. I have seen all the above used.

You accept the 5 criteria, 2 of which are his family and not sure about both, above the most obvious conclusion that the the docs are real? Humm.. I'm not so certain Bill would agree given no more evidence than presented.. Perhaps if the type was impossible. But, fortunatly it was not an impossibility.

[ASTAC]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
1. His son??
2. You think??
3. Perhaps they already have.
4. Why should they?
5. I do not know about this.

Occam, Ockham or Ockam.. I have seen all the above used.

You accept the 5 criteria, 2 of which are his family and not sure about both, above the most obvious conclusion that the the docs are real? Humm.. I'm not so certain Bill would agree given no more evidence than presented.. Perhaps if the type was impossible. But, fortunatly it was not an impossibility.

4. If  CBS wants to prove they are genuine  and not faked they should come out with their source so it can be scrutinized.

As for 1 & 2..what would the family members have to lose? They knew the man better than anyone else. Why not take their word for it?

[Lizking]

Monkey's flying out of your bellybutton isn't an impossiblity, it is, however, very unlikely.