Skip to comments.Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud
Posted on 09/14/2004 9:43:28 PM PDT by charleston1
click here to read article
And I am surprised by how little USA Today has to say on the matter. Something is not quite right with this.
The date just means when they were scanned, right? Does modification mean something was changed?
they blew them up?
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
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)
those were post times - not necessarily when they got them(why did USA Today need to "modify" ?)
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)
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.
For those Freepers on Slow Connections, it is sometimes wise, when posting LARGE images to expand on the (IMG) tag as follows:
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??
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.
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.
The CBS memos seem so much clearer.
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.
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:
Go download it before I hit my limit.
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?
"Breaking News" means...
Where does it say that? Please explain that to us who are not so familiar with your terms!
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.