Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud
ABC Evening News and USA Today | 9/14/2004 | Daniel

Posted on 09/14/2004 9:43:28 PM PDT by charleston1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: newzjunkey

And I am surprised by how little USA Today has to say on the matter. Something is not quite right with this.


101 posted on 09/14/2004 11:45:19 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Okay, thanks, hope this works. and
102 posted on 09/14/2004 11:46:36 PM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

The date just means when they were scanned, right? Does modification mean something was changed?










103 posted on 09/14/2004 11:48:52 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Yep!!


104 posted on 09/14/2004 11:49:12 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

13x18?

they blew them up?


105 posted on 09/14/2004 11:51:19 PM PDT by Wild_Bill_8881 (If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: spyone

I would assume the create date is the date that the doc's were scanned, but technically, it is that date that the scanned images were "imported" and the PDF file created.

Modified does mean exactly that. But it COULD mean that:

1. A page was added
2. A page was deleted
3. the images IN the PDF were changed


106 posted on 09/15/2004 12:02:09 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

107 posted on 09/15/2004 12:02:47 AM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

I'm not sure WHAT they did, but the sizes can easily be seen by downloading the PDFs and opening them with Acrobat (NOT via the browser) - then with Ctrl-D (or File>Document Properties>summary)


108 posted on 09/15/2004 12:04:06 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

those were post times - not necessarily when they got them(why did USA Today need to "modify" ?)


109 posted on 09/15/2004 12:07:16 AM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
YOU ARE RIGHT!

That is the document with only the two line header. CBS was told it was a fraud. The other two with headers had three line headers. All the headers line up together EXACTLY at the pixel level. The exclusion of that document by CBS demonstrates conclusively IMO that they had to know the others were likely frauds as well, even if they didn't have those authenticated (and it appears they didn't, because they knew what the answer would be)

110 posted on 09/15/2004 12:10:15 AM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Or what about enlarged?...Enlarging makes 'em fuzzier and look older, although they may do that so they can post them on a board during editorial meetings.


111 posted on 09/15/2004 12:10:57 AM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

For those Freepers on Slow Connections, it is sometimes wise, when posting LARGE images to expand on the (IMG) tag as follows:

(img src="http://www.challengerdisaster.info/ABC%20WNT%209-14-04%203.bmp"
title="" alt="" style="width: 500px; height: 333px;")

The important part is the width and height aspects - these tell the browser what to expect and, by reducing them from, in your case 720 x 480, it takes less time to load.

Are you using Netscape to browse??


112 posted on 09/15/2004 12:14:10 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
I have posted with link back to this page HERE!
113 posted on 09/15/2004 12:19:23 AM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spyone

Can't say for certain.

The CBS Doc's are larger and were created on the 8th of September (could be a default setting in Adobe which caused the larger page size . . .) Also, if you lool closely at the right margin / bottom margin of the CBS doc's - you will see "white space" which would tend to be the lid of the scanner instead of the paper - maybe they didn't crop the images??

The USA Today document(s) were created on the 9th and the page size conforms closely to what you would expect. Notice - no white space!! BUT for some reason, the PDF file was modified on the 11th - impossible to say why.

If looked into the "source code" of the PDF's, but can find no information concerning what was modified.


114 posted on 09/15/2004 12:19:51 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.; charleston1

Questions that need to be asked of CBS/USA TODAY:
1. How many documents to each of you exactly have? 4 and 6?
or 15 and 20?
2. How many experts did you consult? Any more than the ones we know about?

open to suggestions on other questions you have.


115 posted on 09/15/2004 12:21:50 AM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

The CBS memos seem so much clearer.


116 posted on 09/15/2004 12:23:17 AM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: spyone
I think the time is past for questions ... and ripe for answers. TRUE answers.

Here are the USA Today memos - CBS Memo #5 just happens to be #5 in the USA Today sequence.

CBS knew what they had was a fraud and they put it out. Nothing new here, just fortunate that Dan Rather and MSM types think the average FReeper is a pajama wearing idiot. Heck I don't even wear pajamas when I FReep ... ok, scratch that ROFLMAO.

Seriously, Rather probably doesn't even do his own word processing. He doesn't know or understand the internet. He didn't see what's so obvious to everybody else ... it appears he & Mapes just knew that the story was falling apart on them so they ran with it (covering up what they could & hiding the rest - as their last remaining "witnesses" are Bush haters and not very credible in the least) and it blew up in their face.

117 posted on 09/15/2004 12:30:02 AM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: spyone

Yes, the CBS docs are indeed better images because USA Today downgraded the quality of theirs on the 11th sometime after that first thread. They got hit pretty hard apparently. The old file was 484K and the new one is about 87K, IIRC. Anyway, the better 484K doc is on my website:

www.challengerdisater.info

Go download it before I hit my limit.


118 posted on 09/15/2004 12:30:38 AM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

Well, I have a coupla more, seeing as how Dan has gone underground.
3. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with your daughter on this story?
4. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at the DNC, or the Texas Democratic Party, or any other democrat on this story?
5. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at moveon.org for this story?
6. Mr. Rather, did you or any of you staff consult with anyone at Texans for Truth for this story?
7. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at USA TODAY or the BOSTON GLOBE for this story?


119 posted on 09/15/2004 12:40:01 AM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Southack

"Breaking News" means...

Where does it say that? Please explain that to us who are not so familiar with your terms!


120 posted on 09/15/2004 1:02:09 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

I have added the ABC World News Tonight video here:

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/ABCWNT09142004lowbw.wmv


I apologize for the quality. A family member was using the VCR. I taped it off the TV screen. Arggh but is better than having nothing at all.


121 posted on 09/15/2004 1:24:57 AM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

I love it when freepers score! Anybody working at the old major media tonight? Send them the thread for a byline...


122 posted on 09/15/2004 1:30:40 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

great work-you might want to pass it around, check this article :

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/dan_rather_was_.html


123 posted on 09/15/2004 1:42:06 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

INCREDIBLE!!!

WHAT A COUP!

It absolutely proves that CBS was warned ahead time they were frauds, had all 6 memos and buried two most suspicious before the story.... MALICE.


124 posted on 09/15/2004 1:54:16 AM PDT by Tamzee (Koppel --- "....the media will need a stepstool to rise to the level of used car salesmen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey

Thanks all. I just got the higher quality video up for any additional screen captures anyone wants to make. The file is 26 MB. Don't forget to right click and "Save Target As". It will go of my site probably tomorrow unless it has another good home. My hope is someone else has much better copy.

http://www.challengerdisaster.info/ABCWNT09142004.wmv

Good night.


125 posted on 09/15/2004 2:07:02 AM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Smartass

126 posted on 09/15/2004 2:33:12 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Excellent score!

And your point is -very- relevant to mine... put your point together with mine, and the Smoking Gun evidence is -complete-.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1215403/posts


Qwinn


127 posted on 09/15/2004 2:56:35 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Aw, come on! Cut the kid a break, for crying out loud. It might be a little dated, but it is darned big!

At least he isn't bellyaching about Bush!

128 posted on 09/15/2004 3:01:05 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Smartass
Kerry Lied While Good Men Died.

Rather was a bureau chief in Viet Nam and he continually lied to insure that good men died. He spiked every positive story and made certain that America would only see Viet Nam the way he wanted them to see it!

When you thing of the word "Traitor", visualize Ran Rather!

129 posted on 09/15/2004 3:07:46 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

This qualifies as BREAKING NEWS, IMHO.

And a heck of a lot more than that. If it can be shown that CBS shopped the authentication and rejected documents shown to be forgeries while airing documents with all the same flaws, then they can be shown to be acting with malice. This is the critical legal distinction when it comes to libel. This is the critical distinction that will remove their legal protection when they are investigated for fraud. If malice can be proven, they will have to reveal sources and tell the investigator where the documents came from.

This is HUGH.


130 posted on 09/15/2004 3:12:36 AM PDT by gridlock (BARTENDER: Why the long face? HORSE: Ha ha, old joke. BARTENDER: I was talking to Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Here are 2 posts I put on another thread, which may fit into yours
_________________________
Post #1

Iwonder if Kerry thought the Swiftee's devestating blow would come during the weekend timed with the rally of Viet Nam Vets Against Kerry. That would explain dusting of the AWOL charges yet once again of the CBS 60 Minutes piece. Why would Dan Rather go public with a story filled with so many holes? Scum or not, he is not stupid.

Two things have bothered me since the CBS story broke wide open.

One report has the documents in the possession of the dems for at least 6 weeks. That was the time Kerry staked his whole future on his Swift Boat tour. I suspect they had those ready to go if Bush or someone from the RNC attacked Kerry's record as factually false.

But the President did not bite. He did what people like Kerry hate. By being gracious and praising Kerry's service, he denied Kerry an avenue of attack.

Mr Killian's son said that the producer from Dallas called him about 2 weeks ago asking if the family had these documents. She stated she heard they exsisted and was looking for them.

I can't help but think there is a signifigance between the 6 weeks and 2 weeks, but cannot figure it out.
_____________________
Post #2
I guess I am wondering how long CBS had the documents in their possession. For discussion's sake let's say the DNC "received" those documents at any point of time in the 6 week 2 week time frame. Let's say 4 weeks.

6 weeks ago DNC received memos
4 weeks ago gave them to CBS (my random date)
2 weeks ago the producer contacts the Gillian family looking for memos. She "heard the exsisted.

IF it is true the DNC had the docs & gave them to CBS--what would be the significance for the producer to contact the Gillian family?

Because they knew they were fake or because they were copies a firestorm would (and did break out).


[Maybe the DNC did not give the documents to CBS, but the possibility exsists of some form of collusion between Rather and Kerry as far as the story goes.]

So, if the above speculation is close to the truth, then this question begs an answer. Why would Dan Rather run with a story which had (at best) flimsy evidence to back it up?

Timing--If there is a connection between Kerry and Rather, memos aside, Kerry may have said (thru nuance or even directly) This story has to be out now. All of the sudden the AWOL story was being thrown around again. The new ad was in the can. Maybe they were saving it for October, but for some reason (dropping poll numbers or anticipated Swiftee surprise) they had to get it out now to stop the momentum which Bush has gained and Kerry has lost.


131 posted on 09/15/2004 3:33:46 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights (What part of SHALL PASS NO LAW do they not understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

I've said this before:

Dan Rather is steadfastly holding his ground because he is knowingly part of a conspiracy to influence the 2004 US Presidential election. Who he is working with is yet unknown, reasonable suspects would include Carville, Begala, McAuliffe, and others inside the kerry campaign.


132 posted on 09/15/2004 4:54:59 AM PDT by astounded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; All

'For Rathergate Buffs (and face it, we're all consumed)
A Freeper figures it out. Ignore thread, they yell at
each other over there'

(link from Lucianne's "must reads")

is castration required to post over there?


133 posted on 09/15/2004 5:13:04 AM PDT by Sarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
HIGH QUALITY VIDEO HERE
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/hey-hey-hey-goodbye.html

nice job guys
134 posted on 09/15/2004 5:14:21 AM PDT by recycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah

WHAT??? WHO'S YELLING????


135 posted on 09/15/2004 5:37:57 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
Thurs. & Fri. National FReep CBS Days! A Call To ARMS! FRee Republic ^ | 9/14/04 | Clyde260
136 posted on 09/15/2004 5:38:27 AM PDT by clyde260 (Public Enemy #1: Network News!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

I remember when she peeled off out of here and tried to take as many as she could with her.
Her 'must reads' save time, but our threads ROCK!


137 posted on 09/15/2004 5:41:00 AM PDT by Sarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Thanks for your thread. I would have missed your analysis if it was bured in a thread of 300 replies.

I was unaware that there were 6 docs. As you say only 4 were presented on the 60 minutes show.

On Brit's show yesterday, he revealed the "credentials" of Marcel Matley. There are none. He has had no formal training in signature analysis. Apparantly he is self taught, beginning his career with the signature analyses of women, so he could discover different traits of women based on their signatures. Sort of like divining the future in a crystal ball, or palm reading. LOL


138 posted on 09/15/2004 6:07:13 AM PDT by baseballmom (You Know Where I Stand - GW Bush - 9/2/04 We're standing with you, Mr. President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Yep. Meets the clear to most juries "reckless disregard" standard, imo.


139 posted on 09/15/2004 6:10:26 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.
Rather / Mames source document production factory.

Still reading thread. Do you mean Mary Mapes, producer?
140 posted on 09/15/2004 6:12:16 AM PDT by baseballmom (You Know Where I Stand - GW Bush - 9/2/04 We're standing with you, Mr. President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: charleston1; Southack

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.


141 posted on 09/15/2004 6:28:03 AM PDT by buzzyboop (no tags, no fuss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

When news breaks, we fix it! -- CBS


142 posted on 09/15/2004 6:33:00 AM PDT by paulklenk (FOUR MORE WARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charleston1; All
OKAY FREEPERS, SMILE WE ARE BEING WATCHED OVER AT LUCIANNE'S .......

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/

143 posted on 09/15/2004 6:37:29 AM PDT by AmericanMade1776 ((John Kerry is now in full retreat))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
The timing and placement of your post is OKAY. It is timely and appropriate. Thank you.
144 posted on 09/15/2004 6:37:38 AM PDT by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paulklenk

"When news breaks, we fix it! -- CBS"

LMAO--more please til it hurts.


145 posted on 09/15/2004 6:39:45 AM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
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.
146 posted on 09/15/2004 7:07:56 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@Hiding In Plain View.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

"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.


147 posted on 09/15/2004 7:26:11 AM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
This is false. Using the "width" and "height" commands does NOT reduce the size of the image downloaded. The same image is downloaded regardless---and then it is shrunk in your computer to the size specified.
148 posted on 09/15/2004 8:07:40 AM PDT by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

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.


149 posted on 09/15/2004 8:16:35 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
I'm not an expert on this, but I think that the problem isn't just the image size but the necessary calculation of the image size by the browser.

...one of the biggest delays is that most browsers won't display the entire page until they've calculated the height and width of all the images. (from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Creating a Web Page)

Therefore, having the height and width attributes specified should speed up the process.
150 posted on 09/15/2004 8:49:05 AM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson