Posted on 09/13/2004 4:50:36 PM PDT by TC Rider
Too many people are discounting the duplication of the suspected memos using MS Word.
In the early 80's through the mid 90s I worked with many graphic professionals, sold word processing and desktop publishing systems to periodicals, ad agencies, etc.
I was considered a great demonstrator and operator of these systems.
One of the most difficult things I ever had to do was to duplicate type with an electronic system.
Users/clients would be making the migration from phototypesetting, lead type or rub-on letters and wish their new electronic system to be a perfect match. We ran into the same issues with firms moving from dedicated word processors like Wangs and Laniers.
It was incredibly difficult. Matching the fonts was a nightmare, then if you had a close match, it was then another nightmarish day trying to get the horizontal and vertical spacing to match. Getting the kerned pairs to match would cause you snatch yourself bald.
Just getting the stupid little superscripted "TH" to match requires adjusting a multitude of settings.
When the Mac came out, scientists at the universities in our area (UNC, Duke and NCSU) danced with joy over the ease of doing scientific reports requiring extensive superscripting.
Try this experiment, grab a random book off the shelf, open to any page and duplicate any paragraph where you can put both on a light table and get a match like we've seen with the CBS documents. I promise you that even if you were a pro you couldn't do it without having the exact same system and software, plus a calibrated eyeball.
For the default settings of MS Word to be an exact match is like being hit by lightening, 12 times. It's like the magic rifle bullet that takes out an Abrams tank.
When a MS Word doc matches the '72 original exactly, it's a 99.99999% probability that it was written with Word originally.
I am absolutely dumbfounded that CBS is toughing this out. The only rationale I can come up with for their behavior is to protect the original source, the Kerry campaign.
See BS, hear BS, speak BS
Visit the CBS Take Action Site!
List of sponsors, emails, and more...
Make your voice heard here, where it hurt$.
Bingo! They are defending it because the repercussions are far less than if they told the truth! Better to take this heat than the hell-storm of what would come if we knew the full story.
Or Dan's liberal, activist daughter.
I think you meant NCSU, Duke, and UNC.
Great post. The documents were certainly forged using MS Word. I am 100% certain.
CBS is "toughing this out" for one reason and one reason only - - to protect their candidate for President of the United States, John Kerry, whose party and operatives are obviously the "source" of the forged documents.
Thank you! It deserves the time and space. You have taken on the MSM and can be proud of the effort. Let us hope it does not "Wither on the Vine"! Hum, heard that one in another context.
What you believe seems logical. If they admit the docs are fake, then they are no longer obligated to protect that source. Little else explains why they wouldn't simply admit the obvious truth about these documents.
"That report on '60 Minutes II' was simply untrue; the documents used were obvious forgeries created with a modern word processing program. Instead of asking me questions about my service that have already been answered multiple times over the years, why don't you people investigate the reasons why CBS and Dan Rather won't admit the fraud, and find out who they are protecting?"
I'm not holding my breath, but an answer like that would create a firestorm (and likely end Dan Blather's career).
Of course, you are 100% on the money. I'm a graphics professional myself and you are telling it like it is.
Folks,
We are helping Rather. He's going public saying things like "we have shown the documents indeed *could* have been created in 1972, that the criticism that they are impossible is wrong."
THAT is not the correct configuration. That is reversing the burden of proof. Journalists are obligated to do the necessary research to ensure that the documents MUST have been from 1972, not could have been. They are supposed to have proven a priori that the documents absolutely and unequivocally MUST be genuine before airing them. Not just ask around and find someone to say they might be.
This is pathetic. All the work Freepers are doing looking to find "impossibilities" is not well directed. What should be happening is demonstrating that it is far more probable that they are forged than that they are not. If you do that Rather's defense of "could have been" falls apart. Go for probabilities, not possibilities. Make him address probabilities, not possibilities.
Got a story you might appreciate as a word publishing person - So there I was at a unix expo in nyc (maybe 97), standing in a line (probably food), shooting the breeze with a stranger in a suit. Turns out he was there from a law firm, checking out text systems. He said they still stored heavy lead frames full of cold type in huge warehouses to preserve their legal documents. I couldn't believe it. Good story though.
Bingo.
By the way, isn't it incredible that NOBODY at CBS News or '60 Minutes' has stepped forward to denounce the unethical tactics of the once-proud network? Not a single person at that place has a shred of integrity. Not one.
Actually, there are some ways it can be done fairly easily, but not without an implausible amount of work. What is damning about these documents is not that they can be matched electronically, but that default settings will do so without having to "tweak" anything.
Brilliant. Thanks for pointing this out.
THANK YOU!
IT IS TIME FOR PROSECUTION - send a complaint the FCC and request the Congressman Fred Upton subpoena Rather and the docs for the Subcommittee on Communications and Internet.
Provide copies of your complaint to your local CBS affiliate, Viacom management, etc.; investors and local stations can't afford another shot like they took over Janet Jackson and this one is indefensible and totally on their own heads (they can't blame a wardrobe malfunction for this one)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1214078/posts
Sounds as if you might understand what this incredible expert has to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.