CBS statement: No internal investigation underway

[quaoar]

So, I guess that means that bullshit Drudge was spewing last night was bullshit.

In a statement, CBS News said it stands by its story.

"This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian and were well acquainted with his procedures, his character and his thinking," the statement read.

"In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," the statement continued. "Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned."

The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

[Chichiri]

1. Go CBS! (n/t)

[Walt Starr]

2. BAM!

"unimpeachable sources"

"independent handwriting and forensic document experts"

"The White House did not question their accuracy."

Triple WHAMMY!

Wonder what the freaks have to say about it now?

[Cocoa]

3. lie repeated in the Chicago Sun-Times

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-bush10.html

article written by the mysterious "Thomas Lipscomb" who for some reason has been writing "news stories" as if he were a reporter, which he's not.

[girl gone mad]

8. Yep..

Thomas Lipscomb, who just seems to know all the latest freeper talking points.

[The Stranger]

4. Who is CBS's counsel?

That is not a bad letter. They are dropping the documents, though, and standing by the story, supported by the facts.

[annxburns]

7. I don't see this as "dropping the documents"

I see this as verifying the documents and saying they have even more evidence than that to back up their story.

[Joanne98]

12. Dropping the documents? why did they say this then?

"independent handwriting and forensic document experts"

That doesn't sound like dropping documents to me.....

[The Stranger]

16. To respond to both posts, it appears to me, that this:

This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence,

. . . shows them moving from the status of the documents directly to a standard for burden of proof, indicating that the documents are clearly not unimpeachable. They are taking a qualified position and focusing on showing that the story was accurate, notwithstanding the status of any documents.

Now, if anyone wants to challenge them, the ball is in their court.

[spooky3]

29. I don't interpret it that way. They may well believe that the

documents are legitimate AND that they have strong evidence in addition to and corroborating the documents. They aren't in a courtroom. They are presenting their evidence as journalists to the people.

[The Stranger]

30. Of course they know this is going to be evidence in a courtroom,

if anyone decides to file a lawsuit. This was written by their lawyers.

[spooky3]

31. You're missing my point.

You are interpreting their response as saying they have less confidence in the documents than I interpreted. What is your evidence that your interpretation is correct?

Go back and read my response. I said nothing about whether the case may ultimately end up in court or whether lawyers had a hand in writing the comment.

[The Magistrate]

43. He Is Missing Your Point, Sir

The network has pointed out that there is other evidence both corroborating the story the documents present, and the authenticity of the documents. In no way is this to be reasonably interperted as backing away from the documents; rather, it is a reassertion of their genuine character.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[spooky3]

65. Thank you, sir or ma'am, but I am a ma'am. :-)

[The Magistrate]

14. Honestly, Mr. Stranger

Just for the sport of it, riddle "In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content," into "dropping the documents" for us....

"The thing was as plain as the nose on his face."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[rndmprsn]

5. Email to CBS

just wanted to them to know...

i just wanted to email and let you know that i support you, dan rather and CBS news 100% in the right-wing's attempt to smear you as they do everyone who tells the truth.

there are many, many good people out there who are pulling for you and are not fooled by their attack-spin machine.

[leftynyc]

42. There is a thread in GD04 started by cally

which will be sent to CBS/Dan Rather complimenting him/them on their courage and journalistic integrity.

Edit: Thread titled Dan Rather is My Hero

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. BAM

.

[frylock]

9. yeah, but the guy from little green fuckballs said..

they were forged. Who are you going to believe? He has Office XP, what does CBS and Dan Rather have? Experienced researchers? Decades of credibility? Tons of money and resources?

[RoundRockD]

10. Is anyone questioning the signatures on the memos? Didn't Killian sign

them? Are they going to say that the signatures are forged also?

I really hate republicans AND the lousy media.

[quaoar]

11. The ones that I have seen

are indeed signed. Good point. Haven't heard anything about that.

[Joanne98]

13. CBS had them checked by.......

"independent handwriting and forensic document experts"

handwriting and ink experts, impeachable witnesses. Message to media whores: BRING IT ON..........

[Walt Starr]

15. Signature comparisons

From the CBS document in question:



From Bush's discharge Request released by Bush:



You make the call. From where I sit, they don't look the same.

Edited to Add another signature

This one is from Bush's performance evaluation in 1971:



Edited to add two more examples:

This one is from a second CBS released document:



and this one is from the 1972 Perfromance evaluation:

[Snivi Yllom]

19. I dont think the sigs look similar at all

:(

[Walt Starr]

22. I would point out, I am not a handwriting expert

nor anm I a typeface expert.

:shrug:

Doesn't matter, though. Maybe we should just focus on teh issues of teh day.

[jfalchion]

61. More noise!

to keep the public's mind off the issues.

[Qutzupalotl]

34. I do!

The first has more vertical space, so he can "grow" vertically more. The others were constrained vertically. They all have the "erry" raised in a similar fashion.

[aquart]

53. Exactly.

Check out the variation in your own signatures in a month or year.

It also depends on how many times he had to sign his name that day. Was he signing a hundred performance evaluations in one afternoon?

[displacedtexan]

20. Do you believe the BushCo-released signature over the other one?

I don't.

You may have stumbled onto the biggest secret of all, Walt!

Killian died in 1984.

Bush* ran for Governor a decade later. This was when his flying monkeys went to work, scrubbing his records. What if they forged an honorable discharge letter for him?

I'm as credible a source as any freeper! Cite me.

[seabeyond]

32. this is what i am thinking. thought way earlier

hearing hte story of scrubbing of records. i too wondered if he didnt just make his own dishonorable discharge. say it again, i have found consistantly the story bush yells about, he has done, is doing it. so him yelling about it being a froge tells me he has a forge

[Scorpious_Maximus]

21. With respect, I disagree

The loop and start of the "J" and the later "an" in the last name give it away - I think they are the same.

I can compare my own signiature over the course of years, and it will indeed never be exact, but it is still mine.

But I'm not a handwriting expert.

[Walt Starr]

25. like I said in another post, I am no handwriting expert.

I can pull some more Killian signatures, though.

[dansolo]

35. The K's are completely different

Look at how the K's are written. In the first signature, the K appears to be written with two strokes, while in the other 2 signatures, the K's appear to be written with three strokes. Also, the second stroke is curved downwards in the first signature, but curved upwards in the other signatures.

[Walt Starr]

40. You're right, the "K's" are completely different

IN ALL FIVE EXAMPLES!, three of which are from documents released by Bush.

Just goes to show, only a handwriting expert can make this call.

[LuminousX]

49. I'd like to point out

that if you compare my signature to how I signed my driver's license, my credit card to how I sign my checks and documents in the office you'd see several different 'styles.'

Just saying, most people's signatures change over time and based on location and what else is going on.

[aquart]

56. But it's the same kind of K. The same mind behind it.

[LynnTheDem]

23. They are to handwriting experts, apparently

You should try & compare my signature to what I do as my autograph, if you think those two Killians are different, LOL!

[Walt Starr]

27. Okay, I put up another signature

It's even different from the other two!

Any DUer handwriting experts out there? I'll go pull some more!

[quaoar]

24. I'm not a handwriting analyst

But I do know that if I go and look at any two checks I've written, my own signature will not be exactly the same.

Sometimes I'm in a hurry and just dash it off.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I think it's more the style of the signature rather than something that looks exactly the same.

[ender]

26. WALT - A HANDWRITING EXPERT, YOU ARE NOT.

hows about we leave this to professionals.

[Walt Starr]

39. I never claimed to be

I also put up several more examples and am no longer convinced they are different. I see bits from each of the other four in the first and I'm sure I could find some more!

[TryingToWarnYou]

28. With all due respect....

I have a close associate who is a Forensic Document Examiner and she will be the first one to tell you that your signature does not have to look the same to be the same. Hell, I never sign my name the same way twice.

There are specific points in a signature that give away the truth of the matter.

[LynnTheDem]

36. That's why...

even when you DELIBERATELY try to disguise your signature/handwriting, experts can tell it IS in fact your signature/handwriting.

[Walt Starr]

33. Okay, five examples and I no longer consider them different.

There's just too wide a variety in those signatures for me as a layperson to make a judgement here.

Any handwriting analysts out there?

[The Magistrate]

38. A Couple Of Points, Mr. Starr

First, there are some striking similarities within the signatures; most noteably the form of the Jerry, and the end portion of Killian.

Second, two of the signatures are on document forms where a signature would be dashed out hurriedly, while the other is on a privately composed document, and would likely have been signed in a more liesurely and considered fashion. If you look through examples of your own signatures, you will find that sort of variation, within your own parameters of formality and hasty routine.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Walt Starr]

41. Hey, I only questioned it when I looked at the first two!

I no longer question it because I can see similarities between all of the examples looking at all of them now, and I'm sure they would become even more similar with more examples!

[The Magistrate]

44. It Is A Legitimate Concern, Sir

You have my apology if my expression seemed to take you to task.

One other thing to remember is that a forgery is generally a pretty precise copy of an actual signature, and one of the things looked for in a series of signatures as an indicator of forgery is a lack of variation among them. Where the original is available, there are also considerations of pressure variations, and continuity of line; forgeries are seldom as fluid as the genuine article.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[goodhue]

47. They look sufficiently similar to me.

Why in the world are you feeding this fire?

They are not forgeries despite what some people may say. I simply don't get why so many ostensibly free-thinking folks fall in line for fox propaganda.

I saw outfoxed last night and then this morning saw the forgery spin and it seemed so obviously a fox/bush talking point with no basis in reality. Then seeing the debate on DU was really disheartening.

Let's leave this BS to the freepers.

[Walt Starr]

48. Just comparing two signatures wasn't enough

I needed to put several together to see why the differences seemed so striking to begin with.

I'm convinced these are not forgeries.

[aquart]

55. Based on my six unhappy months working for a handwriting analyst:

Jerry's got two different i's : a tall sharp pointy one, and a looped one. On a crappy day he seems to do it with his l's too. If you've ever tried to get a pc to recognize your handwriting, you know that everyone has more than one way of writing letters.

His i-dots tend to resemble apostrophes. One of them is angular like <. This is consistent in the signatures.

The proportion of that tall first i to the following l is consistent throughout. That's a highly idiosyncratic feature.

The initial starting position to make the capital J is consistent throughout.

The large upper loop on the J is maintained throughout, although the lower loop varies. (Folks, the lower loop is related to physical exercise and amount of sex you're getting. Have fun.)

His hand is essentially trying to make the same K every time.

May I say that when he wrote the discharge request and the 1971 performance evaluation he was pissed as shit? Lotta tic marks and hooking.

[Walt Starr]

60. Finally, we get something resembling an expert on this

So there it is folks, if they were forgeries, Killian did it himself and he did it no later than 1984 when he died.

[aquart]

63. Only resembling.

I was interested so I bought books and kept up.

BUT a certified handwriting analyst trains for three years and must pass certification. You can't just set yourself up and claim to be an analyst.

Which I don't.

[Walt Starr]

64. Yes, but *CBS* hired handwriting analysts to look at the signatures

:evilgrin:

and they are coming out punching on the CBS Evening News tonight!

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-10-2004/0002248214&EDATE=

[crickets]

62. Thank you! (n/t)

[TheWebHead]

58. I think they're similar but..

he may alter his signature style when space is confined. He can make a larger loop in J's for example where there's more space to allow it. I frequently get asked for more ID because that stupid tiny strip on the back of credit cards are impossible to write a legible signature... though I'm pretty sloppy with signatures because I rarely write -- typing instead all the time.

[aquart]

52. Freepers tried to challenge the signatures.

They posted another signature without saying when it was written. It was significantly different. Signatures DO alter over time. They can even alter suddenly (due to a major physical or emotional event). Without a date or context for the other signature, it's simply irrelevant.

The Killian signatures in the CBS documents have a confident flow. They have reasonable variation.

I would bet actual cash they aren't forgeries.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. WOOHOO! GO CBS!!!!!!!!!

Now, can we get back to the lying sack of shit in Al Gore's WH??? HE was AWOL!!!! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL! AWOL!

DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT! DRUG ADDICT!

ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC! ALCOHOLIC!

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:
:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[Lefta Dissenter]

59. Incog,

would you quit beating around the bush* :D

Just spit it out... come on, you can do it, you're among friends here... :pals:

[Scorpious_Maximus]

18. THANK YOU CBS!!!

:bounce:

[leftynyc]

37. You mean Drudge lied???? Imagine my shock.

n/t

[The Magistrate]

45. Worth Keeping Up Top....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[cthrumatrix]

46. kick

[oasis]

50. "DUers" who read this thread will hesitate before promoting Drudge's view.

So we'll have to keep it kicked for their benefit.

[Gothmog]

51. Yeah CBS

When you are right, do not back down.

[amandabeech]

54. Has this story changed from earlier today?

I thought I saw the same story this morning, but I don't recall quite the emphasis on fellow officers confirming that the memos reflect Col. Killian's thinking on the subject of Lt. Bush and those pushing for a "sugar-coated" review.

I also don't remember a statement denying that there is an internal investigation underway.

[Imalittleteapot]

57. kick