For those studying CBS memos: WP "Paper Trail" graphic (fwiw)

[DeepModem Mom]

Graphic: CBS Memos' Paper Trail

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

[whistle]

1. The WH still won't comment on the content of what is in the memos...

...but Killian's former secretary says that was very much the issue with the Col back when those memos were said to have been issued. Bush needs to answer to the secretaries claims that she made in the Dan Rather interview

[shirlden]

2. Both sets could be fakes

The glowing memo allegedly written by Killian for Shrub's promotion does not fit with the testimony of his secretary. If Shrub's file was scrubbed years ago when he first ran for Gov., is it not possible that items which were shredded were replaced with phony docs? Keep in mind that Poppy was head of CIA and could easily had these docs perfectly forged.

The Secretary was too believable. Have not read of anyone questioning her integrity or memory.

:kick:

[baldguy]

3. The only thing that really matters is the content.

Proportion spacing, the Times font, and superscripting were all available in 1972. Its already been established that the CBS memos are supposed to come from Killian's personal files - so its plausable that they were not typed on the same machine as the "official" documents. The style differences noted could just be due to a different typist.

Killian's former secretary, Ms Knox already has stated that the memos reflected Lt Col Killian's views and that she believed they descrribed true events, even though she did not personally type them.

[Karmadillo]

4. Kick. Does anyone find the Post's debunking dispositive?

I thought a lot of the spacing, kerning arguments had been shown to be unpersuasive. Also, if the docs were done on Word, why haven't the "experts" been able to produce an exact copy?

[theorist]

5. The case is far from closed.

The same graphic could be used to convince someone that Killian didn't follow the basic style guidelines that his secretaries did. The only way to prove that the CBS documents are forgeries is to find out who made them. Since we can't go back in time and watch the memos being typed (or not typed), some serious fact-finding is necessary.

[featherman]

6. You can't prove "prove" authenticity from a copy but neither can you

prove forgery. This is not the way it is playing in the non-CBS media but the documents are prima facie genuine until proven otherwise. Signed, dated, technologically possible at the time and place, and in the alleged creator's "voice" (i.e. expressed his witness verified sentiments). They do not allege the impossible but instead that which is highly probable to have occured based on third party verification.