All of the obvious complaints are wrong

Post #173,624 by JayMehaffey 9/10/04 9:20:29 PM Reply	All of the obvious complaints are wrong [link\|http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200409%5CPOL20040910e.html\|Rather's speech CNS news] [link\|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml\|CBS] Questions have been raised about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos acquired by CBS News that say President Bush's National Guard commander believed Mr. Bush was shirking his duties. The network is defending the authenticity of the memos, which were obtained by CBS News' "60 Minutes," saying experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Mr. Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. The obvious complaints are based on the features of the typing and font, but all of those objections are simply wrong. The use of superscript actually appears in other Bush guard records, and the font used was available before Vietnam. The documents could still be fakes, but they simply are not the sort of obvious forgeries that some are making them out to be. One of the best arguments for them being true is that the White House isn't questioning them, and in fact distributed them as part of their release of Bush documents after CBS gave them copies. Jay
Post #173,633 by bepatient 9/10/04 9:59:10 PM Reply	Considering... ...that people were interviewed that directly challenged their authenticity and the opinions given in the piece lend credence to the opposite. These interviews were squelched. And Rather is INSANE if he thinks that the >real< story should be discussed separate from the documents when there would be no story without them. Looney. Nuts. Out there. WAY LEFT FIELD. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #173,637 by Another Scott 9/10/04 11:21:16 PM 9/11/04 1:42:22 AM Reply	On the superscripts... E.g. [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/9-Miscellaneous.pdf\|This] (via [link\|http://www.dailykos.com\|http://www.dailykos.com] ) - see page 3. The "Pilot Trainee 111th..." line is the only place in this 19 page .pdf that I've seen "th" as a superscript. The typewriter used for this entry apparently had a "th" superscript glyph. But note that all of the text in this 19-page package uses a fixed-pitch font. If someone could find some other 1972-vintage documents that show a "th" superscript with a proportional font, the CBS documents wouldn't look so extraordinary. Have you seen such a document? (Also, on page 12 there seems to be an unobscured version of Bush's Social Security Number (but with too many digits). I wonder what else is buried there for the dilligent investigator.) I think the White House isn't questioning them, not because they think they're genuine, but because they don't want to have a horse in this particular race at this point. They're passing them out to try to look like they're not hiding anything from the press; I wouldn't take it as a stamp of approval. My $0.02. [edit:] A more complete copy of Bush's personnel records is [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-1_2004_Personnel_File.pdf\|here] (26 page .pdf). Page 2 has more examples of the superscript "th" - but again in a fixed pitch font. It must have been prepared after November 21, 1974 - the last entry date. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott Sept. 11, 2004, 01:42:22 AM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!