Author Topic: '60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake (Read 5160 times)

Toad · « **Reply #90 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:00:30 PM »

Nash, what I find interesting in THAT document is that on the first line mentioning the "111th" the "th" is raised. The next THREE times the "111th" is mentioned the "th" is NOT raised.

What's up with that? Just sayin'.

I used one of those IBM's. I remember changing the ball to get different scripts. Would I bother to do it for "111th"? No way; that's a waste of time.

I used it when I quoted something and put it in italics, like a whole paragraph or something. There's no fargin' way anyone in their right mind would quit typing and swap typing balls to just have a "raised th".

IMO.

I'm still waiting for something definitive to come out on this. Seems to have dropped from the news. Anyone got "fresh links"?

AKIron · « **Reply #91 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:02:51 PM »

The document that Nash posted was typed no earlier than late 1973, could have been later, it isn't dated. Certainly wasn't typed in 1968 as he seemed to be stating.

Guess it could have been early 1973. No evidence of the '73 dates being written over white-out.

rpm · « **Reply #92 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:03:17 PM »

That document you show is obviously a fake made by Edward R. Murrow. Nash, stop throwing facts on the tracks of radical innuendo. LANDSLIDE BUUUUUUUSH!

-MZ- · « **Reply #93 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:06:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
You are very trusting of news organiztions but not so trusting of government eh?

What?

I trust the government on some things, "Water polluted - No swimming."

On other things, I am skeptical. "We had nothing to do with that bungled coup in (oil rich) Venezuela."

Nash · « **Reply #94 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:06:37 PM »

I think the reason for the one raised "th" as compared to the others which were not raised is because these lines represent entries made at different times, and undoubtedly by different people.

The "th" line was typed in '68 (date is to the left).

The others were entered onto the record after that... the last being October of '73.

AKIron · « **Reply #95 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:09:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I think the reason for the one raised "th" as compared to the others which were not raised is because these lines represent entries made at different times, and undoubtedly by different people.

The "th" line was typed in '68 (date is to the left).

The others were entered onto the record after that... the last being October of '73.

I don't think it was typed in '68. The written in dates are too clean. Have you ever written over white-out? I have, lines written over white-out are not that clean.

Nash · « **Reply #96 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:14:41 PM »

lol.... geesh.... how far some people will go if they want to believe something....

The written dates were written after the final entry. I mean, it does say "date of last order". Probably the last thing they do when a record no longer needs updating... like after Bush was discharged.

Look at the difference between the last line in '73 as compared to the 1st line in '68. Does it not appear that there's some deterioration? Or perhaps yer suggesting that this was all typed at once, and that the more you type, the more inky the ribbon becomes.

Come on...

rpm · « **Reply #97 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:15:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Nash, what I find interesting in THAT document is that on the first line mentioning the "111th" the "th" is raised. The next THREE times the "111th" is mentioned the "th" is NOT raised.

What's up with that? Just sayin'.

I used one of those IBM's. I remember changing the ball to get different scripts. Would I bother to do it for "111th"? No way; that's a waste of time.

I used it when I quoted something and put it in italics, like a whole paragraph or something. There's no fargin' way anyone in their right mind would quit typing and swap typing balls to just have a "raised th".

IMO.

I'm still waiting for something definitive to come out on this. Seems to have dropped from the news. Anyone got "fresh links"?

That page out of his service record is constantly updated. It was typed on several typewriters over several years, starting in 1968. Any of you guys ever been in the service?
Seems like all the arguements for it being fake are being debunked rapidly. First they said the font was'nt available. Turns out New Times Roman was available since 1931. Then it was the porportional spacing typewriter. Sorry, those came out in 1945. Then the "th". IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen. Enter the IBM Selectric and Bush's records he previously released.
Face it, he screwed the pooch and never stood tall before the man.

lazs2 · « **Reply #98 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:17:24 PM »

mz... 60 minutes has retracted stories in the past but only when faced with lawsuits or such a blatant lie that they couldn't help it.. 60 minutes is probably one of the most left wing and dishonest shows on the tube.

weren't they the ones who planted flares in a Chevy truck to make it look like it exploded when hit from the side?

lazs

rpm · « **Reply #99 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:19:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
mz... 60 minutes has retracted stories in the past but only when faced with lawsuits or such a blatant lie that they couldn't help it.. 60 minutes is probably one of the most left wing and dishonest shows on the tube.

weren't they the ones who planted flares in a Chevy truck to make it look like it exploded when hit from the side?

lazs

That was Dateline NBC

Nash · « **Reply #100 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:20:04 PM »

What does it say when they've retracted stories in the past (have they really?) but are standing by this one?

Read why.

AKIron · « **Reply #101 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:28:53 PM »

The OER is a recurring evaluation report and the date will be changed when a new one is written. In times past it wasn't uncommon to use whiteout when changing the date on a document. It also wasn't uncommon to retype a worn document or one with excessive whiteout on it. The date of the last OER was written in '73 and was documented on this form after it had been written. This date looks clean to me, I could wrong since it is after all a photocopy.

It could have been retyped in '73 or later. However, the type in '73 is darker while all the entries up through '70 look the same. Have to admit it looks like it was typed in '70 to me. Still doesn't explain the lack of whiteout or tape evidence in the date of last oer block.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #102 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:30:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
What does it say when they've retracted stories in the past (have they really?) but are standing by this one?

Read why.

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

This is supposed to be someone who had an old IBM Selectric Composer who tried to reproduce part of one of the memos on it. The black is from the original memo and the red is from the attempt to reproduce it.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

Quote

This point was so important to Gerry that he went out of his way to mention it to me again later in the day: centering type is hard on the Selectric Composer. Two of the memos, May 4 and August 1, 1972, feature a three-line centered head. Each of those lines of type had to be centered by measuring it carefully, doing some math, then advancing the carrier to just the right point on the page. The margin for error would be pretty wide because type can be off by a few points in either direction and still look pretty well centered. It wouldn't be objectionable unless you went looking for it. So it wasn't necessary for Lt. Col. Killian — or his typist — to be millimeter-precise.

And yet … he was.
(Image removed from quote.)

Two letterheads typed three months apart can be superimposed on each other so perfectly that no difference at all can be seen. It's the same deal as before: the red in front was superimposed over the black behind it. You just can't see the black copy because the red copy is perfectly aligned with it. These letterheads weren't centered to within a couple of points of each other. They were centered exactly the same. Three months apart.

Nash · « **Reply #103 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:32:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Have to admit it looks like it was typed in '70 to me. Still doesn't explain the lack of whiteout or tape evidence in the date of last oer block.

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?

rpm · « **Reply #104 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:36:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
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

This is supposed to be someone who had an old IBM Selectric Composer who tried to reproduce part of one of the memos on it. The black is from the original memo and the red is from the attempt to reproduce it.

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

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!