Letters to the Editor
-
Simply produce the documents on a '70s typewriter
Here's a task for someone with more free time than me:
1. Find an IBM Selectric from the period
You may want to start on eBay. Here's a link to a search http://tinyurl.com/yroufw
2. Procure the "superscript" ball
On eBay right now there are several ball sets, including different fonts and sizes
3. Video yourself banging out the Bush document
You don't even need to do the whole thing, just the supposed "couldn't have been done on a typewriter" bits
4. Post video to youtube
Tell everyone, make lots of noise, get Video Dog to link to it
5. Watch all those blogging "typewriter experts" implode
I must admit, this will be best part!
-
Joseph Newcomer's analysis, Michmog et al
With all due (not much) respect, Newcomer's analysis is, well, pretty near worthless -- and Michmog's comments are of little value -- they prove nothing . . .
Every published argument that the CBS/Killian documents are forgeries is based on analysing the typeface, generally from TV screenshots!!! No one did the first thing any competent expert would do in trying to decide if a document is authentic, i.e., find another contemporaneous document signed by Col. Jerry Killian, typed in his office, and see if it is similar (like comparing a suspected forged $20 to an authentic one.) Since the document was submitted on a printed form, it seems that many such documents were generated and at least a few should be locatable. Why has no one done such a comparison?
Now I cannot say that the document is authentic or false, but Newcomer's analysis, done of screen-shots is, well, a joke. He never physically possessed the documents -- rather this is what he did:
"To create these images, I used Microsoft Paint to first store the captured screen image from the Bush memo images released by CBS (my Internet-access machine does not have Corel Photo-Paint installed on it), then used Corel Photo-Paint to do the extractions. I have a MicroTek ScanMaker 6800 scanner, and I have been using Adobe Acrobat 5.0 to display the CBS images. Obviously, I used Microsoft Word for the document examples. My printer is a Xerox N4025 laser printer, which prints at 1200 or 2400dpi; all the work I did I did at the lower resolution. All scans were at 600dpi. I used Microsoft PowerPoint for some of the images, those that are doing the vertical line comparison."
No court would admit this evidence, and if he had been called as an expert he would have been shredded. Not surprisingly according to Newcomer's resume he has never served as an expert witness -- which given his self-vaunted expertise one would otherwise expect.
-
So the Supreme Court elected Bush in 2000 and the Press followed suit in 04', but which is worse?
I enjoyed this article for many reasons. It "meshed." Indeed, it was dynamic and gave insight into many levels. The Couric trade for Rather actually had me laugh out loud. Couric "sugary?" How about the lovable TV presence we once wanted to hug has shown itself to in reality be a wonderfully vacuous corporate puppet?
While Rather signed off on the charade and hid a line of thinking that has damaged everything it's ever touched. A line of thinking that claims intelligence, i.e., show the documents can't stand scrutiny, but which in its own way helps us see what anti-intellectualism always amounts to. Disagreeing with the facts ultimately leads to not having the slightest clue.
But most of all, most telling in retelling this episode, is history's ability to provide perspective. Now that we've had four more years of failure we can wipe away the ambiguities. We can focus on what we came across during a period of time when many things were unknown, and now conclude with certainty. We should use history more often. We might focus on one particular fact that has been buried for many reasons, but is nonetheless something that will be obvious later. And that fact is that Bush and his incompetence is solely responsible for not defending us on 9/11.
History will also tell us how Pelosi finding an advantage in taking Impeachment off the table was a horrible mistake.
When you add such an attitude to the fact that the economy is fueled by credit with no standards, a picture of some weight will become this country's truest description.
I think the summation will go along these lines:
"As all societies do the American nation also attempted to legitimize itself, but failed. The interesting historical fact here, however, is the belief by its citizens that just the opposite had occurred. Failing to realize that all societies have to provide for themselves both in a cultural sense, as well as a material, America left behind many opportunities to bring itself a more secure foundation simply by repeatedly claiming otherwise. Similar to the great Greece before it, and even larger Rome, Americans simply failed to realize the responsibilities entailed in a free society. But whereas those once great empires failed and understood doing so, Americans failed then simply chose to believe they could ignore the facts."
Yea, history's going to help. It'll be too late for any of us to enjoy its benefits. But, hey, at least we will have made a contribution, albeit in a negative way!
Thanks Sidney...Viva la Salon!
-
Typewriter/computer idiocy takes over
Good God, are you forgery wingnuts...well, nuts? I downloaded the documents and saying they were made on a computer, in MS Word no less, is the absolute most stupid thing I've heard. Sorry, guys I worked as graphic artist on computers for years and years and years and I can tell you forging that document in MS Word would have not only been almost impossible but downright crazy. Try it!! I dare you. Try moving those letters around to those inth degrees to make them look like they were actually typed on a typewriter...in MS Word! Even in a typesetting/graphic program that would have been a nightmare. Yeah, right! Better one should find an old Selectric and retype the thing on old paper and call that a forgery (so much easier and so much more believable!). You all have absolutely NO CLUE as what you are talking about. Zip.