While the document forensic scientists have identified numerous problems =
with the recent 60 Minutes documents bashing Bush's Air National Guard =
service, problems which clearly indicate forgery, it wouldn't have =
mattered even if the documents had been authentic. John Kerry cannot =
possibly win the election no matter what he does.
Sources inside the Pentagon have unanimously called the documents in =
question obvious forgeries, and no doubt the world's leading experts in =
document forgery are going over each page with a fine-toothed =
supercomputer as we speak, comparing complex graphical algorithms and =
Photoshop plug-ins, Adobe, Truetype, et al typefaces, and the various =
elements of page layout, precision of line spacing, how exactly parallel =
the lines of text are, various typewriter balls and their availability =
contemporaneous to the date on each document, the effects that various =
photocopiers have on extant originals from the very same office, ad =
infinitum. Rest assured, no stone will be left unturned.
Beginning next week, we're going to hear all kinds of charges against 60 =
Minutes and Dan Rather for conspiring to deceive the public directly at =
the behest of the DNC. It was already far too late to save their =
flip-flopping extremist ultra-left-wing liberal candidate from being =
trounced come election day. So why would Dan Rather and CBS risk their =
already leftist liberal reputation from being utterly discredited? CBS =
will lose advertising dollars big time, and Dan Rather will soon be =
looking for a serious career change. It was really a foolish blunder to =
imagine that America wouldn't see right through their ruse.
I'm really looking forward to next week, as Dan Rather is exposed for =
the liar he is.
In Vigilance,
Daniel Joseph Min

d_on_bush_documents/

Aardman <noy@beezwx.hive> wrote in news:120920040300480653%
noy@beezwx.hive:
As usual, Bush haters ignore the obvious out of blind ignorance and
hatred.
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.
html

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

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

http://powerlineblog.com/
I could go on with more sources. But, you'll ignore them anyway.

Did you notice how none of the other biased networks jumped on this anti-
Bush bandwagon? Two reasons: It is not true and it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
No matter how you cook it up you can't make Kerry look like a good
candidate for President.

Have a nice day!

In article <41446d45$0$28027$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Myname
<Myemail@myemail.com> wrote:
Merely said it they were doubtful but offered no explanation.
swf failed to work so no comment.
Bogus
"The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use
for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing
systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word
processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread
until the mid to late 90's. "

Not true - proportionally spaced fonts we're available as early as '68
on the selectronic. Had you followed my link you would've read that,
but you probably ignored it.
"The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized
typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the
superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent (right single quote) used
instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts
of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart
correction in things like Microsoft Word."
Bogus - the th was available at the same time as proportional spacing.
Documents offered by the White House supporting Bush's service contain
the exact same superscript th. Are they forgeries too? If you had
followed my link you would've read that too.
Posting errors such as the above calls all other offered facts into
question.
Plus, there is the obvious fact that 60 minutes would expect to have to
actually produce the documents in-situ, which they couldn't do if they
were copied forgeries.
If they were forgeries, wouldn't it have made sense to just FIND an old
typewriter and use THAT instead of the blatant stupidity of using a
computer word-processor? Any sensible forger would've done that if
they were going to produce forged documents.
No this was an expected move by conservative 'liberal-haters' to
attempt to blur the validity of the argument. It was completely
expected. It's the same tact taken over and over again. Anything that
makes Bush look less than %100 is not debated on it's merits, rather,
the pedigree of the facts themselves are ALWAYS attacked.
Like you ignored mine. I too could have posted many sources but what
good would it have done?
The sad 'fact' is that 'facts' don't matter much anymore... everybodies
mind is made up and they are determined to ignore anything that calls
into question their own beliefs. Just like you called me a Bush hater
that ignored the 'facts' out of hatred.
No, I actually try to look at all sides and think through issues.
Logically, if these were forgeries, not only would that show gross
neglegence on the part of 60 minutes, but slip-shod work at that -
really stupid ham-handed forgeries. And, it would ultimately help Bush
immensely. If you think CBS is a bunch of Bush-hating liberals, why
then would they do that?
Given the nature of Bush's guard duty, and the questions that have
already been raised regarding it, plus the facts that proportional
spacing & superscript th were available, all these make the
authenticity of these documents much more probable.
But probable doesn't matter. Since you can't prove a negative (i.e.,
you can't PROVE these documents aren't authentic), conservatives can
attack this way with impunity knowing they will get away with it, that
web blog after web blog, network after network, will parrot the story
obfuscating the actual debate the story should have raised.
I agree - It won't make a difference and the story has nothing to do
with Kerry.
You too.

In article <41446d45$0$28027$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Myname
<Myemail@myemail.com> wrote:
Merely said it they were doubtful but offered no explanation.
swf failed to work so no comment.
Bogus
"The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use
for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing
systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word
processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread
until the mid to late 90's. "
Not true - proportionally spaced fonts we're available as early as '68
on the selectronic. Had you followed my link you would've read that,
but you probably ignored it.
"The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized
typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the
superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent (right single quote) used
instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts
of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of smart
correction in things like Microsoft Word."
Bogus - the th was available at the same time as proportional spacing.
Documents offered by the White House supporting Bush's service contain
the exact same superscript th. Are they forgeries too? If you had
followed my link you would've read that too.
Posting errors such as the above calls all other offered facts into
question.
Plus, there is the obvious fact that 60 minutes would expect to have to
actually produce the documents in-situ, which they couldn't do if they
were copied forgeries.
If they were forgeries, wouldn't it have made sense to just FIND an old
typewriter and use THAT instead of the blatant stupidity of using a
computer word-processor? Any sensible forger would've done that if
they were going to produce forged documents.
No this was an expected move by conservative 'liberal-haters' to
attempt to blur the validity of the argument. It was completely
expected. It's the same tact taken over and over again. Anything that
makes Bush look less than %100 is not debated on it's merits, rather,
the pedigree of the facts themselves are ALWAYS attacked.
Like you ignored mine. I too could have posted many sources but what
good would it have done?
The sad 'fact' is that 'facts' don't matter much anymore... everybodies
mind is made up and they are determined to ignore anything that calls
into question their own beliefs. Just like you called me a Bush hater
that ignored the 'facts' out of hatred.
No, I actually try to look at all sides and think through issues.
Logically, if these were forgeries, not only would that show gross
neglegence on the part of 60 minutes, but slip-shod work at that -
really stupid ham-handed forgeries. And, it would ultimately help Bush
immensely. If you think CBS is a bunch of Bush-hating liberals, why
then would they do that?
Given the nature of Bush's guard duty, and the questions that have
already been raised regarding it, plus the facts that proportional
spacing & superscript th were available, all these make the
authenticity of these documents much more probable.
But probable doesn't matter. Since you can't prove a negative (i.e.,
you can't PROVE these documents aren't authentic), conservatives can
attack this way with impunity knowing they will get away with it, that
web blog after web blog, network after network, will parrot the story
obfuscating the actual debate the story should have raised.
I agree - It won't make a difference and the story has nothing to do
with Kerry.
You too.