It's Past 5:00 - where the hell is CBS and this "announcement"???

[ItsMyParty]

Are any of you watching for it?? Enough..I want to know right now, Dan....right now. Now Now

[spinbaby]

1. Wow, how early does your news come on?

We don't see CBS news until 7:00.

[MissB]

2. Salon and Sludge are saying there will be an announcement, right?

But has CBS said there will be an announcement?

[RodneyCK2]

3. What announcement are you referring to?

[ItsMyParty]

4. The last word on CNN and MSNBC said it would be at 5:00

so, I'm waiting and waiting. In fact this 'time' has been changed like three times today already.

[napi21]

6. Are they referring to the announcement this morning around 11:30?

Cnn announced then that they are standing by their story against ABC and all the others.

[displacedtexan]

5. CNN is running "Document Fraud?" as an upcoming story.

Just cut to commercial.

[ItsMyParty]

7. Yeah, they have some dumb Jean Meserve thing where they

have talked to CBS' experts but the press release by CBS was suppose to come out at 5:00. I think I'll go over to their webpage and see if I can find anything.

[Snivi Yllom]

8. the lawyers are going over the statement

They are wording the statement to protect themselves after they admit the documents are fake but the story is real.

[GR]

9. MSNBC Said Earlier CBS Wouldn't Deviate From "They're Authentic"

line, most probably...Don't know if they're right or not.

[Lex]

10. No one has proven the documents to be fake.

Why shouldn't Rather stand behind them then?

If someone has real, provable evidence (not just suggestion and speculation) that they are forged, then Rather would have a problem.

So far, the critics have been just whining and speculating.

[James T. Kirk]

11. I know they are fake. Here's how.

If you have a current version of Windows and Microsoft Word, you can do this at home.

1. Start Word. Leave the font, the font size and margins at the default settings.

2. Type the text of the CBS documents. Use two spaces between sentences.

3. Compare the document you just created with the CBS versions.

You will find that you can create exact copies within minutes using just MS Word. Not only is the letter spacing the same, the word wrapping is the same.

[LuminousX]

13. Dude, where've you been, that's been totally debunked

[James T. Kirk]

18. Debunked? How exactly?

I've used several differentword processors over the years. This is Word.

Word, dude.

[phish420]

33. Then so are the official white house released papers

They also use the same font - in 1968, with the baseless 4 and the 'th' superscript - so if these are fake, so are the ones that Bush released...and what does that tell us? That the whitehouse forged BOTH documents - if in fact these are fake.

[James T. Kirk]

38. Wow. The White House really fooled CBS.

:tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes::tinfoilhat::eyes:

[Sparkly]

15. That proves nothing.

As others have pointed out, the fact that the documents can be reproduced in Word -- a program designed to imitate typewriters -- does not prove the documents are forgeries.

To prove the documents are forgeries based on typesetting, one would have to show that they could not have been produced on a typewriter of that era.

[Lefta Dissenter]

23. Just to reiterate what Sparkly said,

To prove the documents are forgeries based on typesetting, one would have to show that they could not have been produced on a typewriter of that era.

[James T. Kirk]

27. Kerning!

In 1972, the typewriters in use didn't kern. And the typewriters in use by people in ordinary offices certainly didn't.

Look at the docs. The y slightly curls under the previous letter.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

I think it is incumbent upon CBS to prove both that it was possible to create in 1972 and that it was created in 1972. They have not made the case.

[Sparkly]

40. Not so

Kerning was designed to replicate typewriters' "proportional spacing."

Again, you'd have to prove that these documents couldn't have been produced on a typewriter of the era in order to prove (via typesetting) that they are forgeries.

Proving that they can be replicated by another method does not prove they're forgeries.

[James T. Kirk]

48. Uh, no.

Do you actually think that the ONLY typewriter that could make this document (and I have not seen any that could yet) would be the one that ended up EXACTLY matching the most common document format from 2004? Why didn't the typewriter match Adobe font? Why didn't it match Word for DOS 2.0? It's just too unbelievable.

We're watching cheap CBS special effects. And we can see the wires holding up the spaceship.

[Sparkly]

54. You still haven't proven it

I'm not saying they are or aren't valid or forgeries. I'm saying reproducing it doesn't prove anything either way.

First, the Word docs do not "EXACTLY" match as you contend.

Second, you can't go simply by what you've seen (things over 30 years old are considered antiques -- there's not a typewriter in every home).

Third, you refer to "the typewriter" matching an Adobe font. What is "The Typewriter" and why does it need to match fonts created later to exist?

Fourth, if there are "special effects" here, I don't believe they're the machinations of CBS, but that'd be a separate issue to prove or disprove.

Fifth, the only way to prove any of these documents is a forgery is to prove it couldn't have been created on a typewriter of that era.

Sixth, beyond this issue but more to the point, if these documents were forged, it would do nothing to bolster Bush's service record, answer questions, or refute the evidence that he was AWOL. If anything, it could bolster the allegations of a massive, long-standing, continuing cover-up.

[Sparkly]

41. Thank Yew!!!

;)

[laylah]

17. No profile =

no credibility...for me, anyway.

Jenn

[MikeG]

20. Go back to Little Green Footballs.

[James T. Kirk]

30. Have you tried the Word experiment yourself?

[Sparkly]

43. Again, duplicating a document does not prove it's a forgery

Only showing that a typewriter of the era couldn't possibly have produced it would prove what you're trying to prove.

[RichardRay]

51. Yep, tried it

and depending on how I managed to copy of the memo I could get it pretty darn close, but I couldn't get it exact.

Note again the previous post - proving that it COULD have been done in MS Word today does not prove it was. The argument of reproducibility by modern technology is neither necessary nor sufficient. What is required for proof is to prove that it COULD NOT have been done on a typewriter of the day. Can you address that issue?

If it were adequate to show that a document is a fogery by reproducing it in MS Word I can get started right now on a long list starting with all government documents from the time typewriters were introduced.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[greenbriar]

24. spock says you are full

of shit

[James T. Kirk]

31. What a thoughtful & witty remark!

[xrepub]

44. Do you understand your statement?

It is essentially:

THese memos can be created with Word
therefore
These memos were created with Word

By this logic, most documents created prior to 1975 are forgeries.

[James T. Kirk]

50. I understand. You don't. It took only minutes to create them.

It takes only minutes to make exact matches! I can probably create a replica of an old page if I spent hours fiddling with fonts, spacing, margins and line breaks. But I typed one of the documents and made only one change: I put two spaces between each sentence. It matched. I have been using word processors since the 1980s. The look of documents changes with different programs and different versions over time. My old term papers and all the old documents in the files at my job look nothing like modern Word. These documents discovered in 2004 look exactly like the 2004 software-generated items.

Two theories.

1. A guy who is now dead and can't be questioned created a secret file without the knowledge of his family or his secretary. The files remained hidden until now revealed by some unknown person from some unknown source and the files match exactly the most common document format in the year they are discovered. He used the most advanced typewriter of 1972 to write secret notes to himself, of which no one has been able to locate a model that can replicate the documents without painstaking work.

2. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

I can't "prove" it to you any more than I can prove that astronauts really landed on the moon if you don't want to believe it.

[trotsky]

55. If you had actually read up on this issue

you would know how fallacious your theories are. Visit dailykos.com for a really good summary.

Times Roman is a font that was invented in the 1930s. Yes, 70 years ago.

Some IBM typewriters, including models available in 1972, used the Times Roman font.

When Microsoft Word came on the scene some 20 years later, it used the same Times Roman font.

Now the fonts aren't exact matches. If you look closely, you will see slightly different formations to certain characters, like the number 8, the letter B, and so on. Plus the serifs are slightly different - they're more pronounced on the CBS memos.

Changing the serifs and character formation - that's just not something Word can do. But then you claim to have made an "exact" match, so either you're lying, or just fudging a bit, assuming it's close enough.

[wurzel]

12. Critics may be "just whining and speculating", but they are winning!

It is incumbent on CBS to prove the docs are genuine. If they do we win big. If they don't we lose.

[Lex]

26. Why should Rather have to prove they are genuine?

They are genuine until someone PROVES otherwise.

If I get a letter in the mail today, do I call and ask the person who sent it to prove it's genuine first?

[wurzel]

28. If this was about Kerry, wouldn't you be demanding proof? I would.

Just like we were over the "swiftboat" liars.

[James T. Kirk]

57. Excellent point.

Examine everything! Be skeptical of what you see on TV. Everyone, keep your bullshit detetctors turned on.

[James T. Kirk]

35. I have a document that says your first grade teacher hated you.

You have not proven it is false, therefore it is true.:eyes:

[The Stranger]

47. Please read the posts already covering all of this.

And, to take your own analogy, if everyone in your first grade class agreed that the teacher hated the other poster, and all of this is recorded in other documents, the document you are so focused on becomes meaningless.

[James T. Kirk]

56. So the documents are meaningless?

If the documents are meaningless, why did CBS use them as evidence in a news story? Why didn't they just use the interview portion and not jumble everything up with all this mumbo-jumbo?

The phoniness of the documents has given wothless pieces of paper meaning. It tells us something about the dishonest journalistic dipshits at CBS.

[The Stranger]

58. One thing you have said is clearly wrong:

It tells us something about the dishonest journalistic dipshits at CBS.

CBS News has stood by its story and no one -- but no one -- has attacked the heart of the story, the contentions made -- that George W. Bush received preferential treatment to enter the National Guard, disobeyed orders while on duty there, and was never forced into active service in the Vietnam war also on the basis of preferential treatment. Witness after witness has confirmed these contentions, and the White House has never disputed any of them.

While other young men were being drafted and sent to die in the jungles of Southeast Asia, one politically-connected young man was given a special break -- his life was placed above those of other young Americans who died and from whom we will never hear again -- and this politically-connected young man, given that special break, still failed to comply with his obligations. Somehow, in spite of being given special treatment and having others sent to die in his place, and despite his refusal to obey simple orders or fulfill his undisputed commitment, this same politically-connected young man was never orderd to active duty.

[seabeyond]

14. they are getting their ass handed to them with this congressional

hearing

damn good thing a democrat didnt do it.

i am hoping someone in bushco did it and gets found out. after secretary talking it is feeling like someone had the hand written adn then typed them out and sent them to cbs

[Texas_Dem]

16. Stay tuned is what I say.

[Sparkly]

21. On representative calling for an inquiry isn't the Big Deal they're making

CNN is practically hyperventilating with excitement -- Congressional Inquiry!! OOoooOOOoooh!!! Haven't seen an inquiry on the media since the election debacle of 2000!

There should be far, far more heavy breathing over the calls for Novak to reveal sources regarding a serious breach of national security.

[Sparkly]

22. dupe

sorry

[spooky3]

49. "I'll be back on 60 mins with NEW Qs about Bush's SERVICE and

with more answers about the investigation"--Rather, quoted as closely as I could.

Doesn't sound as though he's budging an inch at this point.

[Snellius]

19. Josh Marshall says word is that they are real forgeries

that is, copies made from the originals. Oops! Rather's going to have to eat this one, I'm afraid.

The word is out and about now that the CBS Bush National Guard memos are not forgeries but rather recreations of actual documents authored by Lt. Col. Killian.

That theory gains credence from the fact that Killian's secretary has now said that though she believes these memos are not real that their contents reflect real documents that once existed in Killian's personal file -- ones she herself typed.

There's a word, though, for these sorts of recreations, if that's what they are: forgeries.

There's no sense or possibility of getting around that.

The late news that two of CBS's own experts had questions about the authenticity of these documents is really all you need to know to see that this piece never should have run as it did. At a minimum, when the original story ran, CBS should have shared with viewers the questions their own experts were apparently raising about the documents' authenticity.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Lancer]

25. My guess is now that it's 5:49 EDT,

Rather will make the announcement, whatever it may be, at the top of the Evening News at 6:30 p.m.

And I am getting nervous.

[Demi_Babe]

29. Good Lord what is happening

I'm on pins and needles!

[TexasSissy]

32. What about---a DU poster posted images of his service records...

in proportional font, which supposedly didn't exist in 1969, the date of the poster's two documents he posted. He posted them today.

Doesn't that prove the existence of that kind of type in the military?

[Paulie]

34. Link to DUer's 1969 Vietnam Docs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2356031&mesg_id=2356031

[phish420]

37. here ya go

Officially released 'th':


Newly released memo 'th':

[phish420]

39. So how can one be fake and not the other

As you see...if the newly released ones are fake, then the officially released white house papers were fake...how would the democrats have faked the officially released papers from the bush administration?? lol.

[hlthe2b]

36. Statement by the President of CBS News, Andrew Heyward:

Statement by the President of CBS News, Andrew Heyward:

"We established to our satisfaction that the memos were accurate or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal of coroborating evidence from people in a position to know. Having said that, given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that's what we are doing."

this from drudge-- sorry but that's all that's ou there right now

[baldingrockwarlord]

42. My CBS on my cable just went out, strange....

Central Illinois here, all other cable channels up, CBS news did an IVAN story , then.....Kaput!!!!

[Gin]

45. coming on right now (et)

g

[baldingrockwarlord]

46. Anyone else's CBS channel taking a dump?

Every other channel on my cable is up n running. But CBS took a dump right after the hurricane ivan story. WTF is up? I read a few days ago in here about that happening to some others. Wife and I are hopping mad.

[crickets]

52. My broadband is fine, but

the local affiliate (WCTV Tallahassee) waited until precisely the time the segment was to run to cut in with a hurricane update that shaved off the beginning. I don't think I missed much, but it was unnecessary considering the local news had JUST RUN and it was annoying that they chose to cut in just after that specific commercial break. There's no way to know whether it was intentional, but... hmmm.

[betterdeadthanred]

53. In Kentucky Boy did they show Dan!

ROFLMAO, everyone watch 60 mins tonight! Dan pretty much told the R's where to stick it, more info on the whole mess tonight on 60 mins. Someone nees to play "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet" in honor of Dan Rather! I love a journalist that isn't intimidated by the stupid wanna be macho Pukes.