New Bush Guard documents forged...?

[classy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: charrison


Given that you think a mono spaced font resembles a proportional font, I can see why you are no longer doing print work.

Thats irrelevant. In the days of typewriters there were many different print heads and impact ribbon types. And I doubt anyone could quite possibly know everyone or type available. The question is, was it possible that a print head or impact printer be available that could produce that type of font. As you you see it was definately possible. And as someone of above pointed out typewriters were available that could produce superscript. And why didn't President Bush deny the validity of the documents if they and the contents conatined there in are fake?

Yes there were typewritters that were capable, but they were not common either. But according to some experts looking at the document now, there do appear to be problems with them. Granted you still would need to address the signature issues, date format issue and incorrect terms used for a physical(they are called medicals)


What could Bush say about these new documents as he had never seen them.

Real quick. As for signatures I can tell you that I used to cut and pace peoples signatures all the time. I am not talking about that cheap sloppy stuff in photoshop. I am talking about 200g machines that with out some knowledge of ink you would never know it wasn't originally signed. And we can't see the originals. So as far as his siganture that can easily be forged. And using his real one at that

 

[wiin]

Posted by Todd33:

Found this:


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White House distributed copies of the memos, apparently dampening speculation they are fraudulent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You left out the following from the same paragraph:

But the copies are from faxes sent by CBS News yesterday.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: wiin
Posted by Todd33:

Found this:


quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White House distributed copies of the memos, apparently dampening speculation they are fraudulent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You left out the following from the same paragraph:

But the copies are from faxes sent by CBS News yesterday.

Isn't it amazing that the White House would pass around documents like that without even reading them or verifying them?

Almost sounds like IT WAS SCRIPTED

 

[ajf3]

Anyone find it odd that in the May 4 document, you can read the blacked out portion?

"5000 Longmont #8"

 

[chowderhead]

If there is any doubts about its authenticity , why then did the White House communications director Dan Bartlett seek to embrace the documents saying GWB's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

Why didn't they wait and say, we have to review the documents to make sure they are real before we commented on this.
The white house released the same memos as the ones CBS did. I would like clarification from a credible newsource that the WH released copies faxed to them by CBS. Why would they release them if they didn't already have them to begin with?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: chowderhead
If there is any doubts about its authenticity , why then did the White House communications director Dan Bartlett seek to embrace the documents saying GWB's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

Why didn't they wait and say, we have to review the documents to make sure they are real before we commented on this.
The white house released the same memos as the ones CBS did. I would like clarification from a credible newsource that the WH released copies faxed to them by CBS. Why would they release them if they didn't already have them to begin with?

I would be willing to say that most people on the white house communication staff was too young or wasn't born in 1972.

So then they think maybe they are real.

What would we all say if they said "no comment"?

If these were forged, then someone needs to go to jail.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
This is just hilarious, poring over the minutiae of fonts, proportional typefaces and other barn-burning hot issues.
The American people have the system they deserve.

Some people only want the truth when it suits thier needs, the rest are republicans.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Some people only want the truth when it suits thier needs, the rest are republicans.

:roll:

I'll point out that Todd33 and I are (I believe) both Democrats, and we are both expressing skepticism as to the authenticity of these documents.

I'll also observe that the Nixon administration were Republicans.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: chowderhead
If there is any doubts about its authenticity , why then did the White House communications director Dan Bartlett seek to embrace the documents saying GWB's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

Why didn't they wait and say, we have to review the documents to make sure they are real before we commented on this.
The white house released the same memos as the ones CBS did. I would like clarification from a credible newsource that the WH released copies faxed to them by CBS. Why would they release them if they didn't already have them to begin with?

I would be willing to say that most people on the white house communication staff was too young or wasn't born in 1972.

So then they think maybe they are real.

What would we all say if they said "no comment"?

If these were forged, then someone needs to go to jail.

The man is the WH communications director not some lowly peon. He is the HEAD of communications. He was interviewed in the CBS piece meaning CBS gave them an opportunity to review what CBS had.
Perhaps, you are right, after all, Barlett is the same guy who told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

...ask the last man to die for a lie

CsG

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...ask the last man to die for a lie

CsG

Like the ChickenHawk 5 Deferment owner Dick Cheney who told the people if they vote Democrat that Osama will kill them?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Summary of the possibillity of them being faked.

Should prove to be an interesting twist...

CsG

Good find, CAD. I see you've found Charles Johnson as well.

Yessir, nice to see good old "See BS" riding again.

 

[burnedout]

Here's another update courtesy of Professor Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

FS: (Laughing) As a document examiner, I don't like to bet on documents. Mr. Hewitt, but I would certainly say that if I had to give an opinion right now, the opinion would not go towards it being genuine. I certainly have strong questions about this "th" combination that is being used in the superscript, that we discussed earlier.

In one of the websites I noticed that one of my colleagues had been cited, Dr. Philip Bouffard, and he has indictaed that he is about 90% certain that the documents are not genuine. He had had the opportunity to do a more exhaustive analysis of this than I have.

HH: Is he credible?

FS: He is a very credible individual. As a matter of fact, the program that is used by document examiners, throughout the country, in classifying documents, was developed by Dr. Bouffard.

 

[burnedout]

Tonight, Nightline should broadcast their own opinion regarding the documents in question.

"ABC'S NIGHTLINE DOING THE forgeries tonight, and their experts say most likely forgeries. CBS had serious meetings this evening over this."

Stick a fork in this one. It's done.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Summary of the possibillity of them being faked.

Should prove to be an interesting twist...

CsG

Good find, CAD. I see you've found Charles Johnson as well.

Yessir, nice to see good old "See BS" riding again.

Yeah, I waited to see how this all developed before even posting. I finally had seen enough to atleast be fairly confident in the questionability of the documents. I looked around for this "Bouffard" guy and he seems to be legit(as in not just a "paid" expert). The rest of the commentary has been from self-proclaimed "experts" or people who claim things so it had the smell of those "I read it on the internet so it must be true" types of things, but since it has some experts questioning it too(although they aren't officially proclaiming them to be fakes) - I figured it was worth weighing in with what I've read.

This doesn't look like it's going to end well for cBS at this time...

CsG

 

[alchemize]

Isn't there an AWOL thread for this?

And who said the Dems can't run a good smear campaign?

 

[burnedout]

Well, unlike the certifying "experts" for "See BS", both document examiners mentioned here (Dr. Bouffard and Farrell Shriver) actually have names.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Isn't there an AWOL thread for this?

And who said the Dems can't run a good smear campaign?

Well, I think this is a separate thing since it is about potential forgeries and cBS - not necessarily about "AWOL". But if the mods deem it so - thus it will be.

CsG

 

[Chadder007]

Heard about it also tonight on the radio (ABC News Radio)
and on Fox... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131954,00.html about them being fake now.
These documents need to be just forgotten and left alone. If the Dems push it any more now it will be damning to them for possibly forging a letter. Repubs need to stop the medal bashing too though and just get past this crap.

 

[LTC8K6]

Convincing

The superimposed Word document is very convincing evidence of forgery.

 

[GoPackGo]

John Kerry needs to do two things...

Denounce the forgery

and

Never talk about Bush's Guard Record again.

This is serious political damage....Plus this is serious damage to 60 Mins and CBS....

This is almost as bad as when Dan Rather called Saddam "my friend" just before the war.

 

[GoPackGo]

CNN HN is still showing these worthless rags and calling them real.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
John Kerry needs to do two things...

Denounce the forgery

and

Never talk about Bush's Guard Record again.

Why, and why? It seems to me he has zero connection to these documents, and indeed has never commented on them to the best of my knowledge. I think President Bush's Guard service is potentially still an open issue (that depends what the facts are), though I don't think it behooves Sen Kerry to dwell excessively on it.

 

[Todd33]

Ya, WTF connection does Kerry have to the CBS story, the docs or Bush's record? With or without these docs it's very clear Bush didn't report for duty, failed to find a Boston area unit and was let off the hook. Kerry need not touch any of this, he can choose to denouce the 'Texans for Truth' ads, but they have not aired yet.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
John Kerry needs to do two things...

Denounce the forgery

and

Never talk about Bush's Guard Record again.

Why, and why? It seems to me he has zero connection to these documents, and indeed has never commented on them to the best of my knowledge. I think President Bush's Guard service is potentially still an open issue (that depends what the facts are), though I don't think it behooves Sen Kerry to dwell excessively on it.

I still wanna know why Kerry lied about situations regarding his Purple Hearts.. so I guess that makes things even..