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.
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!
Good findings. Thanks for posting.
check out the link on post 18...I think he included the docs there if memory serves.
"that sounds like something he was saying again and that evil Bush was selected, not elected and he's unfit for command ... oh by the way, you know those documents are frauds. Bush, yeah he's like Hitler, he his, and he beat up on Ma Richards like nuthin's business."
They used what they could use. If you listen to how Rather described their so-called supporting witnesses you'll see what I mean, those sentiments bad about Bush he repeated verbatim, the incriminating stuff they swept aside and ignored. Exact same M/O as neglecting to mention this #5 memo that the examiner raked them over the coals over.
? It was news to me that someone had reviewed the docs days earlier and is not cited by 60 minutes as refuting the validity of what they examined. This is a huge story and someone who is trying to help get the facts out is doing more than posting vanity, imo. But then....that's just my opinion.
Hope you are having a great day/evening.
what I meant was I wonder if CNN knew that their counterparts at CBS had - likewise - received all 6 docs; at that point CBS had (as they do still) admitted having only 4 of the six docs. It's this poster's fine observation that CBS gave the examiner memo #5 that is the first clue that CBS wasn't just blind & stupid here.
The management here at FR has been asking for a halt to "Vanity Posts" for days now, So my "snotty butt" isn't going anywhere :-)
You did good. Thanks!!!
Good job. Welcome. Ignore the thread sheriffs unless they're mods.
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.