NBC on Memo, nothing to see here

[corplinx]

On the NBC Sunday evening news, they did their best to gloss over the CBS memo scandal and ignore the smoking gun evidence.

Now, I don't normally watch establishment media news shows, but this was really pathetic. I could learn more from reading the slashdot comments then I could from their comments.

A. They ignored the experts who have tried to reproduce it and failed.
B. They ignored overlays showing it was basically forged in Word.
C. They ran CBS's company line on the military guy they interviews about "we believed and still believe what he orignally told us" despite the fact that CBS asked him to comment on the memos without seeing them.

I mean really, NBC defending CBS like this was just sad. Even CBSNews.com isn't helping out Rather and 60 Minutes like this. The CBSNews.com story actually had an expert look at the docs and state it was most likely a Word forgery.

 

[Lurker]

I thiink the jury is still ou on this one. From what I have heard, some main points of concern are:

1. The superscripted "TH". Yet on other Bush documents one can see other superscripted TH so this one is not a concern.

2. The font. According to a manufacturer, typewriters have had this font since the 30's.

3. Proportional font. While it was in use on those days, it was rare. So this one is still up for debate.

Other concerns?

Lurker

 

[corplinx]

The shape of the quotation marks is wrong for the IBM selectric that had proportional fonts.

No strikethroughs.

Line spaceing is off.

Centered text is PC perfect (scaled almost perfectly instead of off by a letter or more).

Quote marks are wrong shape for IBM selectric. They are shaped like Word TNR.

Word overlays match, IBM selectric overlays DO NOT MATCH.

The list goes on......


There is a reason qualified experts are laughing at this.

 

[rockoon]

CBS looks stupid.

Wait, I take that back...


...CBS IS stupid.

 

[BPSCG]

I thiink the jury is still ou on this one. From what I have heard, some main points of concern are:

1. The superscripted "TH". Yet on other Bush documents one can see other superscripted TH so this one is not a concern.

2. The font. According to a manufacturer, typewriters have had this font since the 30's.

3. Proportional font. While it was in use on those days, it was rare. So this one is still up for debate.

Other concerns?

Lurker

You've barely skimmed the surface. Much more extensive debate here.

A couple of in-depth analyses of the documents, addressing all your concerns and many more here, and especially here.

To my mind, the objections raised against these documents have reached that critical mass where it's now CBS's job to prove they are genuine. At this point, the best argument for their authenticity seems to be that there did in fact exist some expensive, high-end typewriters that would allow a good typist to create these documents, if he wanted to go to the considerable trouble of changing the type heads repeatedly.

In other words, CBS seems to be claiming that since it was theoretically possible, the documents must be authentic. A very weak argument.

 

[aerocontrols]

See B.S.

Yes, I think I do.

The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.

"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.

Time for Rather to tell us where the documents came from.

 

[Jocko]

See B.S.



Time for Rather to tell us where the documents came from.

I wonder if he'll try to hide his source based on journalistic integrity, even though this subject is painfully lacking in both. I can't wait for the next lefty to complain about Fox News just because Colmes is such a limp-wristed pansy Hannity can't help but look good by comparison.

 

[American]

PO BOX 3.14159265358979323846264

 

[aerocontrols]

I wonder if he'll try to hide his source based on journalistic integrity, even though this subject is painfully lacking in both. I can't wait for the next lefty to complain about Fox News just because Colmes is such a limp-wristed pansy Hannity can't help but look good by comparison.

Go here and watch as the media morphs Bill Glennon from a typewriter repairman to a technology consultant until finally CBS declares him to be a 'document expert'.

I guess they're running low on 'experts' who back them up.

MattJ

 

[WildCat]

On this page, an expert on the IBM Selectric Composer (the "typewriter" cited most often as capable of producing the Killian memos) tells why he thinks it's highly unlikely that machine was used to produce the memos.

On this page a font and computer typography expert runs a detailed, somewhat technical analysis to show that they are forgeries.

The "experts" hired by CBS can't hold a candle to these 2 guys. Dan Rather and CBS have some 'splaining to do... such as did the documents come from the DNC? And why are there only photocopies available for analysis? Just to start with.

 

[American]

On this page, an expert on the IBM Selectric Composer (the "typewriter" cited most often as capable of producing the Killian memos) tells why he thinks it's highly unlikely that machine was used to produce the memos.

How big a loser does someone have to be to be an expert on THAT?

 

[WildCat]

How big a loser does someone have to be to be an expert on THAT?

He's sure got his 15 min. of fame now, doesn't he? One day he has a 10 hits a month web site about a 35 year old obscure "typesetting" typewriter, now he's being linked to by thousands of web sites. If he was shrewd, he'd sell some ad space on that site!

 

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, Rather is a Nut.