Help is at hand for document forgers -- CBS take note!

RARE IBM 72 SELECTRIC TYPEWRITER 1961 GREAT FOR FORGING

cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi … 25186&rd=1

[quote]This auction is for a vintage IBM Selectric 72 typewriter. This is one of the early Selectrics produced in the early 1960s, a Model 7X. Now you can create those forged documents right the very first time. We will ship at no charge for Buy It Now buyers.

Yes, this is the one CBS should have used to forge there documents. So to give your forged documents that original look use the original equipment. All you need is some old typing paper to give your forged documents that unique original professional look![/quote]

Yes, but to do an accurate forgery you’ll also need paper and ink from that time. The typewriter is the easy part. But how easy can it be to find ink for that printer that was made 40 years ago?

I also find it hard to believe that there’s no way to tell, scientifically, if the paper had been typed yesterday or 40 years ago. The forgery experts say it’s “as real as Bin Laden’s voice”.

tsk, tsk, twocs. so old fashioned in your thinking. don’t you know you don’t need to provide originals anymore? just xerox the forgery enough times to blur it and who’s gonna know?

if “fake but accurate” is good enough for the nytimes, it should be good enough for you. :wink:

nytimes.com/2004/09/15/polit … guard.html

[quote=“Flipper”]tsk, tsk, twocs. so old fashioned in your thinking. don’t you know you don’t need to provide originals anymore? just xerox the forgery enough times to blur it and who’s gonna know?

if “fake but accurate” is good enough for the nytimes, it should be good enough for you. :wink:

nytimes.com/2004/09/15/polit … guard.html[/quote]

Yes, but your quote is out of context. The New York Times did not say that the documents were fake but accurate. The actual headline is “Fake but Accurate, Typist Says”. The typist who said that is 86 years old.

She goes on to say that though she does remember typing memorandums that included aspersions upon Bush’s character for failing to satisfy requirements, she didn’t think that she would have typed that memo because some of the wording is unusual in her mind. She did agree that there was criticism of him. She’s voting for Kerry because she dislikes Bush’s record in office.

So, I think your response was inaccurate. She is a typist, not a forensic expert. The experts should be the ones to decide. Perhaps her testimony regarding the service (or lack thereof) would be informative, however.

So long as the Dems say that questions re Kerry’s record are irrelevant, questions re Bush’s record are as well.

Don’t matter to me if Kerry was a war hero 30 years ago or if Bush was a draft dodger 30 years ago.

What matters to me is what both men have done in the 30 years since then.

Tigerman [quote]So long as the Dems say that questions re Kerry’s record are irrelevant, questions re Bush’s record are as well.

Don’t matter to me if Kerry was a war hero 30 years ago or if Bush was a draft dodger 30 years ago.

What matters to me is what both men have done in the 30 years since then.[/quote][/quote]

Well, let’s see what Bush has done:

  1. Restricted lawsuits against gun makers.

2)Opposed child-safety locks on guns.

3)Absolutely opposed to a national health care plan.

4)Changed license in 1995 to avoid DUI arrest disclosure.

5)Argued that a person’s Miranda Rights should be waived in some situations.

  1. Claimed to spend 15 minutes before making a death penalty decision.

7)Vetoed a bill intended to improve the free legal representation poor people are forced to accept in Texas.

I could go on and on but you get the picture. Bush has a less than stellar job performance while he has been an elected official.

[quote=“twocs”]
So, I think your response was inaccurate. She is a typist, not a forensic expert. The experts should be the ones to decide. Perhaps her testimony regarding the service (or lack thereof) would be informative, however.[/quote]

all the forensic experts who’ve looked at the memos have questioned their authenticity. cbs has not provided ANY experts who’ve said they’re real. the closest they’ve come is a typerwriter repairman who says they COULD be real.

let me repeat that. cbs’s defense is not that the docs are real, it’s that the docs COULD be real.

like i said before, who needs proof these days?

[quote=“twocs”]Yes, but your quote is out of context. The New York Times did not say that the documents were fake but accurate. The actual headline is “Fake but Accurate, Typist Says”. The typist who said that is 86 years old.

She goes on to say that though she does remember typing memorandums that included aspersions upon Bush’s character for failing to satisfy requirements, she didn’t think that she would have typed that memo because some of the wording is unusual in her mind. She did agree that there was criticism of him. She’s voting for Kerry because she dislikes Bush’s record in office.[/quote]
Well, so a Kerry supporter now says that she didn’t do it, but she vaguely remembers that Bush’s CO said negative stuff. However, the CO’s wife says just the opposite – that the CO thought highly of Bush.

Considering how many “experts” CBS has gone through in the last week, it’s amazing that they aren’t down to “a janitor who once worked with some guy who thought he was in the TexANG at around the same time”, and “who claims to have thrown away some of those memos back then”.

Face facts, liberal twits, CBS got reamed. The only reason they’re stonewalling is so that they won’t have to admit that it was the Kerry campaign which created the forgeries.

Isn’t that what a forgery expert should do? If they don’t have some doubt as to the authenticity how could they check scientifically?

Hey, come on. Is this the Nixon campaign all over again?

Yeah, right, dude! Good to see you back, though; hope you survived the typhoons intact.

This just in:
New York Times:CBS News Concludes It Was Misled on National Guard Memos, Network Officials Say

(No!!! Really???)

[quote=“New York Times”]After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes’’ report that raised new questions about President Bush’s National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.

Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

…a top network executive, Betsy West, met in Texas with a man who was said to have helped the news division obtain the memos, a former Guard officer named Bill Burkett.

Mr. Rather interviewed Mr. Burkett on camera this weekend, … It was unclear last night if Mr. Burkett had told Mr. Rather that he had been misled about the documents’ provenance or that he had been the one who did the misleading.

One person close to the situation said the critical question would be, "Where was everybody’s judgment on that last day?’’[/quote]
Where indeed. This is Damn Blather, See-BS News, signing off.

The stupid and surprising thing is seeing people risk their reputations on such small potatoes. Even if these fake documents were real, they would be a non-event, right? Bush served more than five years in the Guard. He might have had an easy time because of connections and slackened off at the end, but it still seems like a very long time to me. And this has nothing to do with the 2004 election!!! Why would the Dems pursue this deadend issue??

Because it’s the only one they have.

Also, while they’ve manage to perpetuate the myth that Bush “slacked off”, he didn’t.

  1. His draft number, which goes by birthday, was so high that he never would have been drafted. IIRC, it was 327 (Kerry’s was down in the double digits).
  2. Despite that, he joined the Texas ANG. He may or may not have pulled strings to get in, but if he did, he did it because he wanted to serve, not because he wanted out of Vietnam (see #1).
  3. Then, Bush volunteered for a program that would have sent him to Vietnam to fly there. The program was scaled back and his application was turned down; the military was already in the process of shutting down the war under Nixon.
  4. Finally, Nixon announced the pullouts. It was only at this point, when the military was downsizing anyway, that Bush left the Guard.

Those intent on finding some dirt on Bush in connection with his Guard service have totally ignored Bush’s record.

They fret about Bush seeking early leave from the Guard. But, granting such leave had no adverse impact on the US military needs situation at the time. In 1972 there was a huge glut of pilots. The Vietnam War was coming to an end, and the Air Force was taking pilots out of the cockpit and putting them in desk jobs. In 1972 or 1973, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, there was no problem, as in fact, you were helping them solve their pilot glut problem.

While Guard duty was preferable to service in Viet Nam, it was not uncommon for guard units to be sent over to Viet Nam. Air Guard pilots flew 24,124 sorties and 38,614 combat hours in Southeast Asia just after Bush joined. Some records show that 85% of the personnel in the Vietnam-based 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron were Air Guardsmen.

Bush began his Guard training in May 1968 and completed six weeks of basic training, 53 weeks of flight training, and 21 weeks of fighter-interceptor training. Air Guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of [color=red]50 points[/color] annually to meet their yearly obligation. Bush accumulated [color=red]253 points[/color] his first year, and a total of [color=red]589 points[/color] in the succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.

Where is the scandal??? :unamused:

[quote=“twocs”]Isn’t that what a forgery expert should do? If they don’t have some doubt as to the authenticity how could they check scientifically?

Hey, come on. Is this the Nixon campaign all over again?[/quote]

Did CBS and the Kerry Campaign Coordinate in Attack on Bush using Fake Documents?

was gonna ask what bush flew, but remembered there’s a thing called google :slight_smile: found this link, thought i’d post it.

seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm

no implications here but it’s safe to say the 102’s were not going to be sent to vietnam :slight_smile:

Don’t rule out the Clintons yet behind this forged memo. :slight_smile:

And not to help Kerry either, but to sabotage him.

Of course speculation, but would be a great laugh if it were true.

[color=red]
FLASH!
[/color]

A new memo has just surfaced! Now the truth comes out. Quick! Call Dan Rather!

Nothing really new in this article I just love the quote at the end:
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ign_cbs_dc