Posted on 09/10/2004 7:27:13 AM PDT by CHAROM
CBS News is a partisan political mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, much like PRAVADA was for the old Soviet State.
(Excerpt) Read more at mostlydeadarmadillos.blogspot.com ...
PRAVADA? Someone needs Soviet Spell Check.
Post it all.
I'm looking for where this all started. The media is crediting Powerline. Here is what I have so far:
on 9/9:
12:16a first official FR thread on the validity of the documents: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210702/posts
7:51a powerline provides an extensive analysis: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
9:42a first FR thread referencing powerline: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210946/posts
Does anyone have any corrections, addendums to the above?
Imagine if we were back in the days when ABC, NBC, and CBS really ran the information show.
Robert Strong was a friend and colleague of Killian who ran the Texas Air National Guard administrative office in the Vietnam era. Strong, now a college professor, also believes the documents are genuine. "They are compatible with the way business was done at the time. They are compatible with the man that I remember Jerry Killian being," says Strong. "I don't see anything in the documents that is discordant with what were the times, what was the situation and what were the people involved."
Posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211995/posts
We also do it for free. Last I checked, stuffed shirts like Dan Rather were making (certainly not earning) $10 million.
There was an FR post made immediately after the broadcast on 9/8. I believe that the post was initiated by Howlin. Buckhead made the first definitive comment on the forgery at post #47 within a few minutes of the show's completion. There was another FReeper involved but I forget his/her name.
I'm not taking that bet, narby. Your logic is dead on. And what does the guy say? The docs look like the ones we produced. Well of course they look like the ones you had, that is what you were trying for when they were faked!
I don't care who gets the credit. Just curious on the "when" side of it - when was the first post on a widely read internet site that questioned the validity of the documents due to the typesetting?
Old media is dead is the only point. Powerline had an analysis that anyone (connected) in the world could read at 8a the next morning. I was looking to see if anyone may have been questioning it while the show was airing, etc.
Credit? who cares
Old media: spin
New media: slam
Oh yeah I'm with you on that. Hey, I hear FReeper Buckhead was the first one to raise questions about the docs authenticity. There's another thread about it.
All these reporters want to be the next Woodward & Bernstein--the guys to break the next big "scandal". Only problem is that no one wants to do the legwork and verification required.
Just look at all the stories about plagiarism and the retractions that have to be made from rushing too quickly to press. It is just shoddy, shoddy journalism.
You will notice that this fellow, Strong, is said to be the person who ran the TANG administrative office in "the Vietnam era" (which ended in 1975, I believe). AP and others are reporting that Rufus Martin, the man who was the personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time these memos were supposedly written, said he believes the documents are fake. "They looked to me like forgeries," he stated to the Associated Press. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years."
Robert Strong definitely needs to be looked at. Why AP didn't ask Rufus Martin what he knew about Strong is beyond me.
Post # 47 To: Howlin
Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.
In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.
The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.
I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.
This should be pursued aggressively.
47 posted on 09/08/2004 8:59:43 PM PDT by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
thanks.
Now that you guys have pointed me in the right direction...
I found this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210516/posts?q=1&&page=101#148
at 8:27 which would have been during the airing - he questions the validity due to the fact they were typed but not because of the typesetting...
And at 8:44 Howlin asks for help in getting a better look at the documents: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210516/posts?q=1&&page=151#197 ("how they were typed")
This is big stuff for FR.. I couldn't be more pleased!
the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/posts?page=47#47
and of course now:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212080/posts
8:19p http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210516/posts?page=107#107
TankerKC: "They are not in the style that we used when I came in to the USAF. They looked like the style and format we started using about 12 years ago"
refers back to
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/posts#47
Now why is it important to refer it back to us? Well it is because it’s is because it raises the big question
HOW we amateurs could spot right of the bat what CBS couldn’t after supposedly doing there professional due diligences?
The show just bias CBS is...they didn't see it because they didn't want to see it
Can you help kpp_kpp with a timeline in post 4?
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.