Author Topic: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake (Read 5051 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #210 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:14:26 PM »

I just quoted the newsday story.

In the newsday story yiour expert says that you cant typle a lowercase letter "L" in microsoft word in order to fake a 1..

Just try it, in fact is very east to do.. Try it yourselkf. I urge everone to do it.. Open MS word using times new roman (the program and font used to fake these documents) and you will see that this is very east to do.

Just type alternating 1 and l (lowercase L) and you will see its easy to do... MS word does not prohimit you from doing it..

There RPM that disproves your idiot katz expert..

rpm · « **Reply #211 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:23:24 PM »

You better call The RNC with you unrefutable proof GRUN. They will have you on the front page tommorrow with you shocking proof!

Quote

In the newsday story yiour expert says that you cant typle a lowercase letter "L" in microsoft word in order to fake a 1

That is not what he said. You are twisting his words to suit your purpose. If you are going to quote, do it accurately.

Quote

"that would be difficult to reproduce on a computer today."

But back to the root of your complaint. Did he say he thought they were authentic? Yes. Are there more? Yes. Do you like what they say? No. Is that my problem? No.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #212 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:25:45 PM »

"that would be difficult to reproduce on a computer today."

What would be difficuklt to reporoduce today, a lower case "L"...

Good gawd you are gullible...

Whats your email RPM I'll send you a MS word attcahment full of lower case "L"..

Honetly RPM are you really that hateful of Bush that you will belive a guy who tells you that its difficult to reproduces lower case "L" on a MS Word, just beacuse this mopron is trotted out as some computer expert in a bush basing story. Just try it yourself, open up MS word, times new roman font, and see you can tyupe lower case L all you want...

And BTW in times new roman font, the one used to fake theses documents, a lower case L looks very much like a thin 1..

Try it yourself..

rpm · « **Reply #213 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:33:21 PM »

Did he say he thought they were authentic? Yes. Are there more experts? Yes. Do you like what they say? No. Is that my problem? No.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #214 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:37:08 PM »

Here is a summary of some of the major US news organizations that are questiong the memos:

The Dallas Morning News said in a report for its Saturday editions that the officer named in a memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" Mr. Bush's record had left the Texas Air National Guard 1½ years before the memo was dated.

The newspaper said it obtained an order showing that Walter B. Staudt, former commander of the Texas Guard, retired on March 1, 1972. The memo was dated Aug. 18, 1973. A telephone call to Staudt's home Friday night was not answered.

New York Times columnist William Safire wrote Monday that Newsweek magazine had apparently begun an external investigation: it names "a disgruntled former Guard officer" as a principal source for CBS, noting "he suffered two nervous breakdowns" and "unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses."

The L.A. Times reported that handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley, who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos, vouched for only one signature, and no scribbled initials. The Times reports he has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos.

The Washington Post on Tuesday catalogued a number of doubts about the documents, including factual problems like an apparently outdated address for Mr. Bush on one document, differences in typing style between the newly broadcast documents and others from the Texas Air National Guard, and examples of incorrect military lingo.

The New York Times reported that some CBS News employees are growing increasingly worried over the questions about the documents.

Source is a FoxNews article..

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #215 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:38:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
Did he say he thought they were authentic? Yes. Are there more experts? Yes. Do you like what they say? No. Is that my problem? No.

So you have faith in a computer expert who says that you cant type lower case L in MS word...

rpm · « **Reply #216 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:39:09 PM »

He didn't say that. But keep twisting his words.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #217 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:41:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
He didn't say that. But keep twisting his words.

Well what do you think he said?

rpm · « **Reply #218 on:** September 14, 2004, 01:52:25 PM »

Quote

Richard Katz, a software designer, found some other indications in the documents. He noted that the letter "L" is used in those documents, instead of the numeral "one." That would be difficult to reproduce on a computer today.

But Katz, the software expert, pointed out that the documents have both the so-called "superscript" th (where the letters are slightly higher than the rest of the sentence, such as 6th ) and a regular-sized "th". That would be common on a typewriter, not a computer.

"There's one document from May 1972 that contains a normal "th" on the top. To produce that in Microsoft Word, you would have to go out of your way to type the letters and then turn the "th" setting off, or back up and then type it again," said Katz.

Did he say it was impossible to type a lower case l in ANY of that?
No, he did not. But remember, Katz is only one of the experts saying they look authentic.

Sooooo...Did HE say HE thought they were authentic? Yes. Are there more experts? Yes. Do YOU like what they say? No. Is that MY problem? No.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #219 on:** September 14, 2004, 02:01:23 PM »

But it does seem tro be your problem that many legitimate news organizations are questiong them...

Did you read the article I posted above about all the other news sservices who are questioning the memos?

ASTAC · « **Reply #220 on:** September 14, 2004, 02:45:03 PM »

Compare the documents yourself..

http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img4...60minbusted.swf

And an excerpt from Neil Boortz

quote:The expert that CBS retained to examine the documents has now come out and said hey...wait a minute...I never really authenticated the documents. He says all he authenticated was the signature. He says he made no attempt to authenticate the documents. Now even the Washington Post has called them into question.

__________________

Toad · « **Reply #221 on:** September 14, 2004, 02:51:57 PM »

Quote

To produce that in Microsoft Word, you would have to go out of your way to type the letters and then turn the "th" setting off, or back up and then type it again," said Katz.

Devil's Advocate here:

If one were going to go to all the trouble to forge this stuff knowing that you were going to use it to attack Bush in the national media if you could.......

would that be such a difficult task?

Uh....NO. We're talking about a bloody WORD PROCESSOR here. It'd handle that chore as easily as a Cuisinart slices a carrot.

What he's saying is that MS Word could do this about as easily as it does a spellcheck or gives you a grammar suggestion.

I think you'd better find a more supportive example.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #222 on:** September 14, 2004, 03:02:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I think you'd better find a more supportive example.

Allow me to answer for RPM:

http://www.google.com

ra · « **Reply #223 on:** September 14, 2004, 03:04:35 PM »

lazs2 · « **Reply #224 on:** September 14, 2004, 03:14:33 PM »

umm... toad... ol buddy..

I think rpm is correct. no way would a liberal go to any extra effort when forging a document... we have lots of evidence of sloppy forging and lazy mud slinging by liberals...

I give you f 9/11 and "the arming of America" as proof as to how lazy liberals are in their research and lying.

lazs