Bush's Guard memo's are fake?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I am always one to oblige, especially when intelligence is questioned. Pay attention to the second line of service, what do you see?

Slow down there big fella no-one is questioning you intelligence; just asking for the links and substance. I don�t believe that this information if true is any different from what was already disclosed�that is what I was saying. What I found odd, and I�ve looked through those pictures at the link you provided, is that I can�t find another usage of th superscript in a memo type document, in your perusals did you notice any (exceptions noted below)? Anyway the ones that interested me the most were the memo type posts�.and none of those had the th superscript yet both of the CBS memos had the superscript�I found that kind of peculiar�as for the WH having doctored memos�no one has yet looked at who doctored these documents (if they are doctored).

Exceptions, the document you showed (10) and 14. 14 was obviously created at some point after GWB's service and I�m not sure as to the creation date of the one you showed�.it appeared to be calling out 30apr73 as the creation date and then listed 1oct73 as a start date?? Still it appeared interesting to me that out of fifty or so usages of th there is one and then on the recently found documents there are roughly 4 of which 2 are superscripted�.either that is one HELL of a coincidence or�..?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Don't ever doubt the validity of my statements, I am not one to shoot from the hip.

Whether you shoot from the hip or not I�m still gonna want to see for myself if possible



[edit on 12-9-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Very interesting document. It appears the th can indeed be different on one of those old machines.

But I must ask a question to some of our more um, "mature" members with experience on these machines:

It appears to me that the "th" is just smaller, and does not go above the characters that surround it, like on Word or the documents in question. It looks like it may have been a seperate key or character on the ball. Can anyone with more experience on these old typewriters verify this?

Maybe because of the years of photocopying and faxing?

Wrongo Curme, Are you even looking for the truth or just looking for excuses.

The "th" in the CBS provided document is not a superscript at all--neither is the example in the links provided by Somewhereinbetween.

As this site demonstrates, they are simply a "th" key and differ in key ways from a superscript.

From the article:

"The 'th' in the Texas Air National Guard documents is not a superscript, but a monospaced ligature that fits within the bounding box of the character space. So let me be very pedantic here: the 'th' in the released documents is not, I repeat, not, a superscript. It is a single character."

So it seems you were "shooting from the hip" SomewhereInBetween, and there is, at least in this case, no validity in your statement.

The ball, it would seem, is back in your court.


The documents are forged.
Dan Rather lied.







[edit on 14-9-2004 by gurnio]

Originally posted by keholmes

Slow down there big fella no-one is questioning you intelligence;

I didn't think you were, and fyi, I am not a "fella."

just asking for the links and substance. I don�t believe that this information if true is any different from what was already disclosed�that is what I was saying.

Two things, if you believe that information is already disclosed, then it should have been enough to support my statements previously without you asking for links. Secondly, this information goes to discredit the unequivocal claims made by those disputing the documents. That is all that is necessary to prove that in fact the memo could have been created by a typewriter that allowed for superscript, on 8 X 11.5 paper and in the Times Roman font of that period. Now having proved the naysayers to be nothing more than shills for Bush, it is becoming a nitpicking party to throw anything against the wall and see if it sticks. It doesn't work that way, the refutation was undeniably wrong, and it doesn't matter that obne document differs to the other, not all typists will type in uniformity.

The fact that doc. 10 itself utilizes both the superscript and the non-shifted "th" tells me that more than one person entered information. I do not know what that document is, whether it was typed all at once, kept up at the end of each assignment, or created well after the fact, but that is how it appears to me, and I do know that it was released by the White House as part of Bush's records to corroborate his service. If it was created by one person then Bush has another problem in that, the superscript issue now points to fraud by his camp or that his disinformation team has been caught telling lies to the public about the 60 Minutes document.

Originally posted by gurnio

It appears to me that the "th" is just smaller, and does not go above the characters that surround it, like on Word or the documents in question. It looks like it may have been a seperate key or character on the ball. Can anyone with more experience on these old typewriters verify this?

Maybe because of the years of photocopying and faxing?

Wrongo Curme, Are you even looking for the truth or just looking for excuses.

The "th" in the CBS providided document is not a superscript at all--neither is the example in the links provided by Somewhereinbetween.

As this site demonstrates, they are simply a "th" key and differ in key ways from a superscript.

From the article:

"The 'th' in the Texas Air National Guard documents is not a superscript, but a monospaced ligature that fits within the bounding box of the character space. So let me be very pedantic here: the 'th' in the released documents is not, I repeat, not, a superscript. It is a single character."

So it seems you were "shooting from the hip" SomewhereInBetween, and there is, at least in this case, no validity in your statement.

The ball, it would seem, is back in your court.


The documents are forged.
Dan Rather lied.

I am am I? Now you go to semantics to prove your point. Here is the document:

www.cbsnews.com...

Note that the bottom of the "th" extends below the top of the "1" starting at approximately the curve of the "t." Now maybe it is my computer but try as I might when I type "111th" into Word using the Times New Roman font, the "t" starts below the "1" at approximately the cross of the "t." In fact, it is that way with any font I applied. That is the only word processor I have, so I am still to be convinced that it could not have been done. In fact, unless it was forged by using something other than Word, then I would say that this effectively dismisses the Word argument also.

When either you or anyone else finds immutable evidence of forgery, then I will gladly concede the point, I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the very evident holes in the current arguments that say they are.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Note that the bottom of the "th" extends below the top of the "1" starting at approximately the curve of the "t." Now maybe it is my computer but try as I might when I type "111th" into Word using the Times New Roman font, the "t" starts below the "1" at approximately the cross of the "t." In fact, it is that way with any font I applied. That is the only word processor I have, so I am still to be convinced that it could not have been done. In fact, unless it was forged by using something other than Word, then I would say that this effectively dismisses the Word argument also.

I think I understand your confusion...

The Microsoft Word program shows superscripts differently on your monitor than it does on a printed document. Type "111th" into Microsoft Word and print it...You will see that the superscript is "superscripted" on the printed page.

I think this effectively dimisses your argument against Microsoft Word.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
When either you or anyone else finds immutable evidence of forgery, then I will gladly concede the point, I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the very evident holes in the current arguments that say they are.

Try peterduncan.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink">this link

Especially the "overlaying MS word onto the original" section about half way down the page.

Then try it at home and tell me it's not "immutable proof".

I'll be waiting for you to concede the point.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by gurnio]

Originally posted by gurnio

I think I understand your confusion...

The Microsoft Word program shows superscripts differently on your monitor than it does on a printed document. Type "111th" into Microsoft Word and print it...You will see that the superscript is "superscripted" on the printed page.

I think this effectively dimisses your argument against Microsoft Word.

Try peterduncan.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink">this link

Especially the "overlaying MS word onto the original" section about half way down the page.

Then try it at home and tell me it's not "immutable proof".

I'll be waiting for you to concede the point.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by gurnio]

You'll need a far better argument and a great deal of help if you think I will concede to a point you have yet to even begin to make, you have in fact hurt your own argument by making yet another false claim as per above. Especially since I did print my test, and it is as I have stated.

But, since you want to lean toward mild insult, I'll assist you with the implication of my statement. Word's Times New Roman, does not print the superscript as in the document alleged to be a forgery. Consequently, that arguent is once more renedered moot, bogus, and fabricated. I'll recap;

- Superscript was available.
- Document 10 in Bush's records shows the use of superscript.
- Your superscript argument is absolutely false since the "th" placement using word is unlike the placement in either document 10 or the 60 minutes document.
- The Selectric II has a key that allowed for a shift up.
Conformity in using a typewriter is impossible considering that key and the roller release, whereas the Word program's print is set.

You cannot prove your case without making a number of assumptions about the origination of the document, by whom it was produced, by what method it was produced, whether or not that person or his office could afford a particular typewriter, and especially whether or not everyone in the NG typed uniformly. That is as plausible asl assuming that he typed it with his left foot while reclining on a lazy boy chair and listening to Mozart.

And, I leave you with this thought to further prove that you have not advanced your argument at all; no one has proven the document a fake, not the National Guard, not the military by providing document and paper guidelines, not IBM, no one.

Yet, it is not difficult to prove one way or the other, but I certainly would not be coming out with bogus arguments as you and Bush's protectors did, I would asking to view the original document 60 minutes supposedly has in its possession, and in their presence inspect the watermark.


So what next have you for me that the document was created on Excel, the 111 typed in one cell, the th typed adjacent to and formatted to fit?

Like I said, when immutable proof is ofered I will concede that the document is fake, until then I'll wait for someone that seems to have a bit more originality, and much more conclusive proof, than the silliness offered up thus far.

1) Get a copy of the exact document that CBS Published.
2) Copy that document exactly as it looks into MS WORD.
3) Print the MS WORD doc on transparent paper.
4) Watch the two documents match up exactly.

Originally posted by build319
1) Get a copy of the exact document that CBS Published.
2) Copy that document exactly as it looks into MS WORD.
3) Print the MS WORD doc on transparent paper.
4) Watch the two documents match up exactly.

The two documents do not match up, period! And so what if they did? That does not mean they were not typed. You have swallowed the hook, and who obtained an exact copy and conducted the test? Aside from those addressed previously, there has been all sorts of claims as to why the documents are forgeries, some of which I will provide below, but first to your theorum above.

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

That paragrapgh is from this link: www.cnsnews.com... which also makes the additional claims I will provide, but first another section:

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com homed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

Already addressed earlier, and here are the additional claims:

"The 'I'm' is set with an apostrophe," Haley added. "There were no apostrophes on typewriters. There were foot and inch marks that had to do double duty."

Incorrect!
see pic of selectric 1, en.wikipedia.org...:Selectric.jpg and II en.wikipedia.org...:Selectric2.jpg

but I see an apostrophe in this document, second word after �STRENGTH� www.usatoday.com...

The documents are not on a standard letterhead. Instead, they feature a typewritten and centered address with a post office box rather than an actual street address of the squadron. The address is P.O. Box 34567, which coincidentally includes five consecutive numbers.

Incorrect!
Doc. 5 in the list provided previously is typewritten, with a centred address. users.cis.net...
and note doc. 7 the P.O. Box no. bottom left it is 34567 users.cis.net...

Dates in the letters - "04 May 1972" and "14 May, 1972" - are inconsistent and do not follow military form. The military prefers the following example, according to ex-officers: 4 May 72. It doesn't include a zero preceding the date or a comma following the month.

Incorrect!
Then there is a problem once more concerning document 10. The dates are typed year/month/day, which is also not the so-called preferred style users.cis.net...

but this document, a press release, certainly does show the date typed with the comma users.cis.net...

The document from the Air Force (pg 20) is type dated �01 may 74� www.usatoday.com...

The lines "MEMORANDUM FOR:" and "SUBJECT:" that begin the May 4, 1972, document, weren't officially used in the 1970s. According to one retired military officer, the correct format then was most likely "REPLY TO ATTN OF:" then "SUBJECT:" and finally "TO:" preceding the text of the message.

Incorrect!
Air Force memo (pg 20) does not include the �reply to attn of.� Or �subject� lines. It says: From and To. www.usatoday.com...

Bush's name was listed in the memo as "1st Lt. George W. Bush." But other military documents, including those posted on Sen. John Kerry's website use a different format. Bush's name would have likely appeared as "1LT Bush, GW" or "1LT G Bush."

Incorrect!
Then we have yet another problem with this document signed by Bush�skip down to the letter of Nov. 21, 1974 from Air Force HQ. it is addressed to: 1st Lt Bush George W., not 1LT or 1 LT G Bush. www.usatoday.com...

There shouldn't be disparities in the May 4, 1972, letter such as, "111 F.I.S." and "111th F.I.S.," according to ex-military officers. Also, the acronym "F.I.S.," which stands for Fighter Intercept Squadron, shouldn't have included periods.

Maybe
and I say maybe because using the two is an oddity, but that hardly makes it a calculated forgery. It seems that Bush was not up on military requirements for typing acronyms correctly either, but he is an idiot and so can at least be credited for managing to type at all, I'll let you find the rabbit: www.usatoday.com...

Perhaps this application should also be looked at with scepticism alongside doc. 10

The signature block with Killian's name lists his rank as "Lt. Colonel," when in reality most military commanders abbreviated that title as "LTC" or "Lt. Col.," according to retired officers. The signature block also includes the word "Commander" when "Commanding" was the preferred reference.

Incorrect!
(pg 17) shows E.C. Herber Lt. Colonel www.usatoday.com...

Then the �commander� (pg 16) Bobby Hodges �Commander.� www.usatoday.com...



There was also another claim that Killian was no longer serving at the time of the June 1973 memo, well maybe there is a forgery of massive proportions going on after all. The document on page 6 dated May 5th and 6th of 1973 required Killian�s signature to approve his discharge. www.usatoday.com...

Seems to me that all of these debunkers, typographers and retired military officers are either flunkies craving attention or Bush propagandists who have no clue what they are talking about and should not be making public asses of themselves lest they incriminate the persons responsible for the records released by the WH and used in support of debunking those claims, they may prove to be the forgeries and maybe the same source as the 60 minutes documents.

With all of the easily debunked lies being churned out in these vacuous attempts to discredit the 60 minutes memos, your attention should be focused on setting the record straight on these shills rather than trying to find that one tiny bit of evidence that would require Killian to rise from the dead to defend. Isn't that what ATS is supposed to be about?


[Documents obtained from www.usatoday.com... ]

This is my last post on the insipid theories surrounding this story.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

The two documents do not match up, period! And so what if they did? That does not mean they were not typed. You have swallowed the hook, and who obtained an exact copy and conducted the test?

Sorry bud, you're outta there. A documents expert proved today that the docs in question were done on MS Word. He made the doc in question into a transparency, and then hand jammed the verbiage verbatim into MS Word and printed it out. When the transparency was placed over the MS Word doc, they matched EXACTLY....end of story....


You need to watch the news more...

I hope that any one out there doubting that these documents are faked will check out littlegreenfootballs.com.... It PROVES these are fake.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Two things, if you believe that information is already disclosed, then it should have been enough to support my statements previously without you asking for links.

Sorry didn�t mean disclose�.I meant assumed.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Secondly, this information goes to discredit the unequivocal claims made by those disputing the documents. That is all that is necessary to prove that in fact the memo could have been created by a typewriter that allowed for superscript, on 8 X 11.5 paper and in the Times Roman font of that period. Now having proved the naysayers to be nothing more than shills for Bush, it is becoming a nitpicking party to throw anything against the wall and see if it sticks. It doesn't work that way, the refutation was undeniably wrong, and it doesn't matter that obne document differs to the other, not all typists will type in uniformity.

Actually the most consistent argument that I�ve seen�.made frequently by www.littlegreenfootballs.com is that when typed into word it matches one for one. The other things you mentioned have been noted as well but the fact remains that those are not the basis for most questioning the document�I tried it for two of the documents myself and they matched one to one as far as proportional spacing and formatting. With the lone difference being the slight difference with regard to the th�.. And I beg to differ but you have yet to prove anything. Now having typed with typewriters from that era I remember how the centering was done�.yet the centered memo matches word again one to one.

originally on LGF
The vertical spacing between lines is identical. The right and left margins are identical. Each and every character in each and every line matches up with the exact same characters in the lines above and below. The line breaks fall exactly on Word�s autowrap boundaries. The date at upper right aligns perfectly with Word�s default tab stops.
Another of the bogus documents even has auto-centered text, again matched exactly by its Word equivalent.

originally on LGF
The spacing is not just similar�it is identical in every respect. Notice that the date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same. And I did not change a single thing from Word�s defaults; margins, type size, tab stops, etc. are all using the default settings. The one difference (the �th� in �187th� is slightly lower) is probably due to a slight difference between the Mac and PC versions of the Times New Roman font, or it could be an artifact of whatever process was used to artificially �age� the document. (Update: I printed the document and the �th� matches perfectly in the printed version. It�s a difference between screen and printer fonts.)

originally on LGF
[/url]http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/[/url]
The new evidence revolves around the fact that Microsoft Word auto-formats its text using the centering function. When the text alignment for �center� is selected each subsequent line will be precisely centered underneath the previous one with each word of the text readjusting to meet this alignment as new letters are entered into the line. Since typewriters mechanically stamp letters onto a sheet of paper one at a time, it is physically impossible to create a mechanical typewriter document that perfectly aligns two or more centered rows of text on top of each other. The address bar on CBS Memo #1 is perfectly centered and perfectly aligned, thus it had to have come from a computer word processor and not a typewriter. The replication experiment in Microsoft Word with an identical match further validates this origin.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The fact that doc. 10 itself utilizes both the superscript and the non-shifted "th" tells me that more than one person entered information. I do not know what that document is, whether it was typed all at once, kept up at the end of each assignment, or created well after the fact, but that is how it appears to me, and I do know that it was released by the White House as part of Bush's records to corroborate his service. If it was created by one person then Bush has another problem in that, the superscript issue now points to fraud by his camp or that his disinformation team has been caught telling lies to the public about the 60 Minutes document.

And as I pointed out at least one other document (14) in those that you linked was created long after his service was over�.just because you are no longer in the service doesn�t mean that they stop generating paperwork based on it. DD214 and other documents can and are updated long after the end of service. I too do not know what that particular document is (10), but when you look at only the memo type documents there are no th subscripts except for in the CBS memos.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by build319
1) Get a copy of the exact document that CBS Published.
2) Copy that document exactly as it looks into MS WORD.
3) Print the MS WORD doc on transparent paper.
4) Watch the two documents match up exactly.

The two documents do not match up, period! And so what if they did? That does not mean they were not typed. You have swallowed the hook, and who obtained an exact copy and conducted the test? Aside from those addressed previously, there has been all sorts of claims as to why the documents are forgeries, some of which I will provide below, but first to your theorum above.

Well if you look at all the facts I am not wrong. Why did you want to believe this so much? I guess this all goes back to the saying that we have grown to love, Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by build319]

So, let me see if I get whats happening here? The DNC decides to fake some incriminating documents about GW Bush. The DNC decides to use a period of time when he was in the National Guard. However, in their supreme intelligence, they decide to use MS Word instead of actually using an old type writer? This is just classic. ...and ..and Dan Rather is standing behind all this with his utmost "credibility"?

This is better than the time 20/20 attacked GM for exploding gas tanks and then it was found out they were using a primer charge on the filler neck of the tank. Who knew gasoline would ignite when detonated? Classic, pure and simple.

What the hell ever happened to a time when journalist reported the news and left their own idiotic political views out of it? I mean, no offense to journalist, but their degree is not exactly Rocket Science and what makes them qualified to think their opinion is more informed and thus more correct than say, Oh I don't know, someone with an advanced degree in arts or science? And what gives them the right to force it upon us at all cost including feeding us fabricated news to do so?

Nice going Dan!

Here is further proof that Bush's dad pulled strings!!

The documents are fake. Bigger issue is that CBS knowingly aired false documents. The content of the letters might be true, but what's more important? His recent past or his 30 year past? Same goes for Kerry and all this Vietnam, swift boat nonsense.

Compare the records of Bush and Kerry in the last 4 years. Look at what Kerry has done as Senator. Look at his voting record (or lack of). THAT should be what the hoopla is about. Look at what Bush has done in the last 4 years. If you hate it then vote Kerry.

Interesting to note that on 60 minutes II last night the woman ended by saying that at the end of Bush's national Guard service he seemed more focused on his campaign than his Guard service. How in the world is that different than what Kerry is doing NOW? In the last year he has only showed up for 13% of the senate votes. In the last 4 years he only showed up for about 36% of the votes. If you are going to bash Bush for not making his job his priority 30 years ago I suggest you look at what Kerry has been doing while the people of Mass are paying his salary!!

Jemison

I do not think the issue here is the story. I think the issue is the presentation of the story. They presented a story based on "evidence". The question was raised to the authenticity of the documents.

The 60 minutes with the secretary was a nice spin. But you have to look through the smoke and answer this question: "Was the original report based on hard evidence?"

Marian Carr Knox answered that question in the interview.

"I know that I didn't type them."

She did not type them.

But she claims to have typed similar documents.

If she typed memos saying the same thing as these documents and these documents are not the memos she typed, there is a very high probability that these documents are fake.

CBS is still supporting a story that they proved has a high probability of being based on forged information.

Where is the integrity?

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

The two documents do not match up, period! And so what if they did? That does not mean they were not typed. You have swallowed the hook, and who obtained an exact copy and conducted the test?

Sorry bud, you're outta there. A documents expert proved today that the docs in question were done on MS Word. He made the doc in question into a transparency, and then hand jammed the verbiage verbatim into MS Word and printed it out. When the transparency was placed over the MS Word doc, they matched EXACTLY....end of story....


You need to watch the news more...

Really? And how did he prove that, by guess work that sounds convincing to you? I have already debunked all of the previous claims, including the MS Word association, and I am not an expert. I used only direct evidence available from the WH released documents. That is how simple it was.

Maybe you choose to discount that I have shown the cannots as proscribed by these so-called experts appear as cans in the WH released documents. If that is the case, then I can only state that failing an affidavit signed by the ghost of Killian and witnessed by you and every other Bush backer will be the only proof you accept. But then again, probably not, for reason does not seem to fit within your equation for the search for truth.

Originally posted by keholmes
Actually the most consistent argument that I�ve seen�.made frequently by www.littlegreenfootballs.com is that when typed into word it matches one for one.

Not on my computer it does not. Nor for that matter the expert who claims that they cannot say with any certainty it was not typed on a typewriter. Little greenfootballs is a joke.

The other things you mentioned have been noted as well but the fact remains that those are not the basis for most questioning the document�I tried it for two of the documents myself and they matched one to one as far as proportional spacing and formatting.

Ah, but you miss the point. These experts claimed certains things were not available or were not used, or were not done. I have discounted all, which means that these so-called experts are shills, liars, propagandists for Bush. They have been denied their claims and that is all that matters.

With the lone difference being the slight difference with regard to the th�.. And I beg to differ but you have yet to prove anything. Now having typed with typewriters from that era I remember how the centering was done�.yet the centered memo matches word again one to one.

The vertical spacing between lines is identical. The right and left margins are identical. Each and every character in each and every line matches up with the exact same characters in the lines above and below. The line breaks fall exactly on Word�s autowrap boundaries. The date at upper right aligns perfectly with Word�s default tab stops.
Another of the bogus documents even has auto-centered text, again matched exactly by its Word equivalent.

Sorry, but you lose again. there can be no slight difference. You wish to prove a point, then prove it without a doubt , no caveats allowed. You are either a little bit pregnant or not pregnant. I can print a letter in MS Times New Roman, and then in Word perfect New Roman and claim they were made by the same word processor, but had a slight difference because yadda, yadda, yadda. I am a master at using Excel, in that there is nothing I cannot do with the program, nothing at all, save to not fool the scrutinous eye, so it would be very easy for me duplicate the letters/memos and know what the flaws were since I can manipulate Excel far better than you or any word technician can manipulate Word, and much more than Word can be twisted. And trust me, I gave hint of the manipulation previously.


The rest of your post is just filler.

Um, you haven't debunked anything SomeWhereInBetweeen.
It seems that you may be the last person in America clinging to the belief that the forgeries are, in fact, real.

Dan Rather himself has finally admitted that they are suspect.

But go on believing whatever makes you happy...

For the rest of you more in touch with reality, it has been determined that the documents were faxed from a Kinko's in Abiline, Texas.

So, it seems we're getting closer to the source of this hoax.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
I do not think the issue here is the story. I think the issue is the presentation of the story. They presented a story based on "evidence". The question was raised to the authenticity of the documents.

The 60 minutes with the secretary was a nice spin. But you have to look through the smoke and answer this question: "Was the original report based on hard evidence?"

Marian Carr Knox answered that question in the interview.

"I know that I didn't type them."

She did not type them.

But she claims to have typed similar documents.

If she typed memos saying the same thing as these documents and these documents are not the memos she typed, there is a very high probability that these documents are fake.

CBS is still supporting a story that they proved has a high probability of being based on forged information.

Where is the integrity?

Because she did not type them they are fake?

They are fake when it is proven that Killian did not sign the documents.