For Rathergate Buffs (and face it, we're all consumed) A Freeper figures it out. Ignore thread, they yell at each other over there. http://www.lucianne.com/
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.
This is the best personal post (vanity does not fit in this case, nothing vain about it) I've ever read on FR. Powerful. Thanks for your analysis.
When news breaks, we fix it! -- CBS
For Rathergate Buffs (and face it, we're all consumed) A Freeper figures it out. Ignore thread, they yell at each other over there. http://www.lucianne.com/
"When news breaks, we fix it! -- CBS"
LMAO--more please til it hurts.
"cut to the chase, charleston1! You should send this to Powerline as an email. They might miss it here. And while you're at it, send it to Brian Ross at ABC as well."
My apologies. I may have slept a weak two hours last night and therefore have just been insensitive. Sorry. Anyway, I just e-mailed Powerline.blog and ABC.
Okay, I stand corrected. I do recall though that the Mod recomended this for performance. I don't know if that is true though. I have broadband so I can hardly tell the difference.
I'm the one on the left!!
Good catch by the blogger.!! I read the ABC site very early this a.m and did not see the document posted that Emily Will was so concerned about. But I certainly concluded from the story that, after she and another document examiner disputed the documents authenticity, that the actions of CBS and its henchmen was a deliberate and willful scheme to perpetuate the fraud.
CBS is supposed to be making an announcement at Noon eastern time. It will be interesting to see what they say, but it doesn't sound promising. Nothing less than a full admission of culpability and the dismissal of Rather, Mapes and others who participated in the scam is acceptable.
btt
It's my opinion that O'Reilly deserves to go down with Rather. I have not been able to watch/listen to him for several weeks. His ego and arrogance, not to mention his 'thoughts' about our Swiftvets has made me draw the line.
I am sad about it, nevertheless.
"It's unfortunate O'Reilly will go down with Rather"
Not really a bad thing, he has become an unbearable ass.
It's true he has become unbearable. There was a time when he did appear 'fair and balanced'. This one I can't quite understand considering all the evidence against Rather.
Now really who's watching out for us...blogospheres and Freerepublic.com.
Too-many-threads-on-this-to-keep-up-with bump.
Folks without broadband are going to have a tough time downloading your images.
If you open them in Photodraw or Imageready you can save them as JPEG format which is a much smaller file.
Rather will not spend a day in jail. He is a journalist. And by definition, they lend their opinion whether it is fully veted or not. Opinion.
Since when did you believe what you heard on CBS? It is fun to watch Rather and his enablers squirm. CBS, what a joke!!!
What has Letterman had to say. Don't forget the time Dave threw softballs at Her Hindness. It's all SeeBS, doncha know.
It just gets worse and worse. It's time to dump Bob Shiefer as a Presidential Debate moderator. It is time for the White House, Senate and House to yank the credentials of CBS until the forgeries are revealed and all those involved have been sacked.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Time to Talk about the 2008 Election"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
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.