Posted on 09/14/2004 9:43:28 PM PDT by charleston1
I don't normally watch the ABC World News Tonight, but after a tip from someone a time zone ahead of me, I decided to watch and videotape their news tonight. I am glad I did. As described on several other threads, ABC News took their gloves off and gave CBS News/60 Minutes a good hard public flogging. In an article entitled "Casting Further Doubt," ABC News left no doubt that the CBS Evening News has perpetrated a clear case of fraud on its listening audience. The written article is located here.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html.
In the article, ABC news systematically dismantled what was likely to have been Dan Rather's “Swan Song”. Instead, it will undoubtedly be the story that drowned his career, a career I used to respect years ago. I still fondly remember the Dan Rather that went to Afghanistan to report on the Mujadin. Wow, how far he has fallen since hiking through the mountains of Afghanistan. Whether ABC knows it or not, they went one step further than their story suggests. That is, they exposed malice and fraud by CBS News/60 Minutes. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I videotaped the news article. I stood there stunned as I watched the interview by Brian Ross with Emily Will and I have reviewed it several times. Was I seeing things? Yes I was! There in black and white was Ms. Will going over the one document CBS News gave to here to presumably authenticate. Brian Ross stated:
“Emily Will, a court certified examiner from North Carolina, says she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check in the days before the broadcast.”
Ms. Will said: "I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter."
On camera, Ms. Will goes over an enlarged display copy of the document she examined. Therein is the problem and the answer to the question of whether CBS News was honestly just reporting the facts. Unless Ms. Will is lying, CBS News/60 Minutes gave her a document that CBS has never publicly admitted that they had in their possession. Ms. Will carefully reviewed the alleged signature of Jerry B. Killian on the June 24th, 1973 letter addressed to “Sir”. I first found this same document on the USA Today website as one of six (not four as reported by CBS) alleged Killian documents which I first shared here on September 11th: search under "Killian" for the "Two more 'Killian' Documents" thread. Since CBS News did not make the June 24, 1973 document available at their website as part of their original story, the question for me ever since has been why? As it turns out in perfect hindsight, CBS has made significant efforts to lead the public to believe that they only had four documents. Just go back and watch the 60 Minutes II, interview again or go see the four documents on their website today. Why only four CBS documents? Recall that Marcel Matley, the respected signature expert used for the 60 Minutes II, interview to support the authenticity of the alleged Killian documents, was also only given one document to examine. Mr. Matley was given the 04 May 1972 document in which Lieutenant Colonel Killian allegedly ordered then Lieutenant Bush to report for his annual physical “not later than” May 14, 1972. This is a case of authentication shopping!!! It is also fraudulent and it was clearly done with malice as there is no other reason to restrict an honest authentication expert from seeing all of the evidence unless you already know the answer you want to hear. If anyone was duped, it would appear to be the documents experts themselves and an unsuspecting TV audience. Obviously, CBS should have shared all of their documents with all of their experts. It would appear that the truth they were looking for is frustratedly hard to find and harder to accept—a truth which exists in the minds of the investigators but not in their fictitious documents. In the end CBS News chose to use for its broadcast, the one signature that looked most authentic when compared to other known signatures of the late Colonel Killian. CBS News cast aside the document Ms. Will told them was not authentic. Of course, it is possible that Ms. Will was using the June 24, 1973, document as a prop provided by ABC, but I don't think so. I think Ms. Will did examine document number five of six (chronologically speaking). If not where did she get it, ABC News? Oh, and Bloggers, it’s charleston1@cox.net. Thanks.
Look, I know that you are excited about your revelation, but your vanity post isn't "Breaking News" and will piss off quite a few FReepers. Come on, surely you are smart enough to figure out what "Breaking News" means...
The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!
Actually that is really major, he is pointing out something epic that others could easily miss. Son of Buckhead. Now that even the LATIMES is admitting the documents are definitely forgeries, this is the next phase. To what degree did CBS fail to follow proper journalistic standards in vetting the documents, or even much worse, intentionally shopped "experts" to authenticate a small portion of the docs to give credibility to something they knew was a fraud from the start, with the clear intention of influencing a presidential election?
Come on, cut the newbie some slack. It still stands as a good and informative post.
I remember your excellent post on the six documents, Charleston! You should link the post here for other freepers and media lurkers to read. I think you are right that it points out CBS where not dupes but shaping the outcome they wanted.
Yeah, its more informative than the crusty stuff I usually post.
Very interesting, I hadn't really thought of it in that way. It makes logical sense. It clarifies why CBS wants no investigation and is pursuing the stonewall strategy. The Congress and the FCC really need to get involved in this.
Yeah they are still expert shopping but the market is real tight.
read his outstanding post/analysis on the usa today documents. They received 6 MEMOS! CBS says there were only 4! His thesis is CBS also received 6 but buried the other two! He is an outstanding newbie. Let's hear from USA TODAY!
Yes it IS Breaking News.
BREAKING NEWS? >>
yea, that's what he put. so?
I agree the poster deserves a break because of the informative post, but lately this site has become more of a chat room for emotional outburst. This well thought out comment could have been posted to at least 50 threads as of late, and hardly deserves it's own thread, when we know the bandwidth here is being tested because of all the new visitors and members
Sorry about your treatment here....thanks for the info.
Calling all lawdogs!
Good info, thanks.
"I remember your excellent post on the six documents, Charleston! You should link the post here for other freepers and media lurkers to read. I think you are right that it points out CBS where not dupes but shaping the outcome they wanted."
Thanks,
I think some of the replies above were made without reading my whole article and I knew I was taking a chance making it as long as I did. I think I have fairly pointed out the methodology CBS used including the deliberate witholding of two key documents from the public in a deliberate effor to not be found out. I am linking to that first post I made here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213444/posts
It was breaking news six hours ago.......not now.
I agree, from a legal technical POV, this is breaking news. That is, crossing the "malice" threshhold etc.
For those above who've already figured it out I'll give the poster one more plug here:
1. CBS was given the 6 documents that CNN was
2. One of the two they DIDN'T reveal was pointed out as a fraud by this expert
3. CBS stops further analysis and runs with the 4 they have left.
4. Yet (and I'll add my point here) there one & only "expert", the spirtual handwriting guy (who isn't certified) has written that when one document of a group is known to be a fraud the rest are automatically either suspect or ruled out prima facia, too!
What's important here is that ALL of this gets linked back to the DNC AND Kerry. Rather is finished professionally and may even wind up in jail. The DNC and Kerry need to go with him.
Rebump for breaking.
We may have to have detention and give classes to people who think every thought that pops into their head needs its own thread.
So are you saying that Rather knowingly, premeditated with malice of forethought intentionally set out to defraud the voting public who are in the undecided group?
It's unfortunate O'Reilly will go down with Rather.
Welcome to you.
BTW, some formatting would be easier on the old eyes. ;^)
I just e-mailed link to this post to Kerry Spot for him to confirm - if your catch is correct this could be the big(gest) one!
that wouldn't be the way it worked; putting on my Bernard Goldberg hat here, what would have happened is that Rather (or more likely just his producer Mames), with their bias, shut down the authentication process before they ran out of subject material, believing in their Kerry loving heart of hearts that the story was true, if only it weren't for those darned document examiners who make swiss cheese out of the Rather / Mames source document production factory.
Who?
The reason they were only given one document only, is that if you line all six up, you will see that 2 of the six signatures are completely different.
Of the remaining 4, there are actulty only 2 signatures, each of those 2 signatures were cut and pasted on the other 2 documents.
The Mods need to crack down
BTW, some formatting would be easier on the old eyes. ;^)
Er, I plead totally guilty. I admit it, I typed it up on Microsoft Word and it looked so real there that I just pasted it into the freeper post box thinking it would look good here too. Next time I'll use my typewriter;-)
LoL! Hey! that's what I was working on!
Yep...that's the ticket!
You can ignore it by getting your snotty butts of this post.
Thanks for the ping!
LOL I can't believe I used to give him an hour a day.
Excellent work....ignore the opinion from behind the curtain.
I bet I can say why ... because nobody that will pass the laugh test is going to sign off on these documents, even one at a time & particularly not all in tandemo ROFLMAO
Ha Ha,Ping
This is definitely BREAKING NEWS! Can you get a screen shot of that displayed document with the date? It does not accompany the ABC story.
The ABC story says: "Ultimately, they played a peripheral role and deferred to another expert who examined all four of the documents used,"
Clearly ABC does not understand that they were looking at a fifth document that CBS had suppressed.
I just posted to the admin moderator to suggest that this thread be put back in BREAKING NEWS.
Good job. Now, please get us the proof. If you don't have a means of getting a screen shot from the tape, then give us the city where you are. There may be a Freeper who can perform a screen capture for you. (Make a COPY of the tape!)
Give the poster another read - I think this is a bombshell. It makes clear the degree to which CBS knew that they were working with phony material ahead of time AND WITHELD IT FROM THE PUBLIC. They didn't say, in their report, CBS also obtained two other documents from the same source they weren't able to authenticate. Heck, they didn't authenticate any AND withheld the two. I wonder if USA Today knew that CBS did, indeed, have the extra two docs when they published their .pdf file.
Yeah I can get a videograph up online. I'll do so ASAP! I'm off for awhile.
We may have another winner here if we can get charleston1 some help in preparing a screen shot of the document display from the ABC report!
Charleston1 saw something in the broadcast that ABC news missed! CBS was clearly shopping experts.
yes, USA does know cuz charleston posted the JPEG or whatever file it was 2 days ago!
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.