This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0481_01C49906.770471D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
------=_NextPart_000_0481_01C49906.770471D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#add1c5>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D4>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D4>
<DIV>While the document forensic scientists have identified =
numerous=20
problems with the recent 60 Minutes documents bashing Bush=92s Air =
National=20
Guard service, problems which clearly indicate forgery, it =
wouldn=92t=20
have mattered even if the documents had been authentic.=20
John Kerry cannot possibly win the election no matter what he =
does.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sources inside the Pentagon have unanimously called the =
documents=20
in question obvious forgeries, and no doubt the world=92s leading =
experts in=20
document forgery are going over each page with a =
fine-toothed supercomputer=20
as we speak, comparing complex graphical algorithms and Photoshop =
plug-ins,=20
Adobe, Truetype, et al typefaces, and the various elements of =
page=20
layout, precision of line spacing, how exactly parallel the lines of =
text=20
are, various typewriter balls and their availability =
contemporaneous to the=20
date on each document, the effects that various photocopiers have =
on extant=20
originals from the very same office, ad infinitum. Rest assured, =
<EM>no</EM>=20
stone will be left unturned=85</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Beginning next week, we=92re going to hear all kinds of charges =
against=20
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=20
flip-flopping extremist ultra-left-wing liberal candidate from being =
trounced=20
come election day. So <EM>why</EM> would Dan Rather and CBS risk their =
already=20
leftist liberal reputation from being utterly discredited? CBS will lose =
advertising dollars big time, and Dan Rather will soon be looking for a =
serious=20
career change. It was really a foolish blunder to imagine that =
America=20
wouldn=92t see <EM>right through</EM> their ruse.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I=92m really looking forward to next week, as Dan Rather is =
exposed for=20
the liar he is=85</DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D4>In =
Vigilance,</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D4>Daniel Joseph =
Min</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0481_01C49906.770471D0--
.
|
|
| User: "Aardman" |
|
| Title: Re: 51 Days & Counting.... |
12 Sep 2004 03:00:48 AM |
|
|
In article <CsO0d.30$kZ4.70468@news.uswest.net>, Daniel Joseph Min
<Real.Min@Colorado.USA> wrote:
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
Sorry to inform you Min, controversy over:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/11/authenticity_backe
d_on_bush_documents/
This whole forgery claim was completely expected, why? It was the only
way to demonize the story. Conservatives have learned well how to win
- demonize the opposition any way you can and don't worry about whether
or not your accusations are true. As soon as you make them, the media
will be all a-buzz following your red-herring and dutifully ignore the
real issues being raised.
I predicted this would happen as soon as I heard that these documents
had come to light, and I wasn't disappointed.
--
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
William Of Occam (c. 1285-1349)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Myname" |
|
| Title: Re: 51 Days & Counting.... |
12 Sep 2004 10:37:41 AM |
|
|
Aardman <noy@beezwx.hive> wrote in news:120920040300480653%
noy@beezwx.hive:
d_on_bush_documents/
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!
http://www.registeredmedia.com/gallery/albums/media/danrather/rathermorni
ng.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aardman" |
|
| Title: Re: 51 Days & Counting....attn: Myname |
12 Sep 2004 12:04:52 PM |
|
|
In article <41446d45$0$28027$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Myname
<Myemail@myemail.com> wrote:
Aardman <noy@beezwx.hive> wrote in news:120920040300480653%
noy@beezwx.hive:
d_on_bush_documents/
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
Merely said it they were doubtful but offered no explanation.
http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf
swf failed to work so no comment.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
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 ¹ (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.
http://powerlineblog.com/
I could go on with more sources. But, you'll ignore them anyway.
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.
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.
I agree - It won't make a difference and the story has nothing to do
with Kerry.
Have a nice day!
You too.
--
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
William Of Occam (c. 1285-1349)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: 51 Days & Counting....attn: Myname |
12 Sep 2004 05:15:34 PM |
|
|
Aardman a écrit:
In article <41446d45$0$28027$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Myname
<Myemail@myemail.com> wrote:
Aardman <noy@beezwx.hive> wrote in news:120920040300480653%
noy@beezwx.hive:
d_on_bush_documents/
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
Merely said it they were doubtful but offered no explanation.
http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf
swf failed to work so no comment.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
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. "
The fact is that it was used on IBM selectronic composers. I used ot be
a composer of the publication Mainmise (Montreal Quebec) in 75-76 (well,
spare, I was a reporter too, became administrator even, but I helped
with all aspects and did a lot of translation and did a lot of
composition as the composer was had her family problem, anyway), and we
had one around that time.
This is very specialized, only for high quality publication, well, at
the time. There were no good computer alternative to that then. Or
hardly. But this was in use only by editors.
A selectric typewriter then cost 1 thousand dollars, whereas a selectric
composer cost 10 thousands dollars.
There is no need to use a composer to fill in forms.
Even if they existed I cannot imagine that they were used by the civil
servant well the military ones, instead of regular Selectric typewriter
to fill forms. The selectric composer was something used to create
forms. Not to fill them.
This is very suspicious, and doesn't seem to be considered... which
should be investigated with the people who worked on these.
But again, this is just a remark. The fact that his son is certain he
wouldn't have acted like that is also eloquent mind you.
Anyway, time will tell I guess.
J.
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 ¹ (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.
http://powerlineblog.com/
I could go on with more sources. But, you'll ignore them anyway.
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.
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.
I agree - It won't make a difference and the story has nothing to do
with Kerry.
Have a nice day!
You too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boortz Ohio" |
|
| Title: Re: 51 Days & Counting....attn: Myname |
14 Sep 2004 11:32:15 PM |
|
|
This flash movie that supposedly busts CBS isn't even correct. Here's
Part II showing closeups comparing the fonts they *claim* were used in
the documents:
http://img75.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img75&image=cbsdebunkdebunk.jpg
Aardman <Klavierstucke33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<120920041201531458%Klavierstucke33@hotmail.com>...
In article <41446d45$0$28027$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, Myname
<Myemail@myemail.com> wrote:
Aardman <noy@beezwx.hive> wrote in news:120920040300480653%
noy@beezwx.hive:
d_on_bush_documents/
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
Merely said it they were doubtful but offered no explanation.
http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf
swf failed to work so no comment.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
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 ¹ (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.
http://powerlineblog.com/
I could go on with more sources. But, you'll ignore them anyway.
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.
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.
I agree - It won't make a difference and the story has nothing to do
with Kerry.
Have a nice day!
You too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
