PDA

View Full Version : forged Bush docs



FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 02:08 PM
I'm sure many of you know by now that CBS is acting completely unethical on this. The documents are clearly forged. There is no doubt whatsoever to anyone who has a head on their shoulders.

Today I opened up MS Word and typed out one of the documents and what did I find? An exact match. When I say exact, I mean spacing between the variable width letters, spacing between lines, everything! The date is even aligned perfectly with a default tab.

MS Word default settings did this. I didn't have to change a thing.

Here's the fraud document (second page):
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/091004_bush_service.pdf


and here's the one I typed up:
http://fillyourbrain.com/19May1972.doc


Do your own comparison and then try to give a serious defence (keeping a straight face) of CBS.

Govtcheez
09-12-2004, 02:29 PM
Yeah, I don't know what the hell they were thinking with them. They even lay over each other perfectly.

edit: on the other hand, you linking to fox news while talking about ethics is pretty funny.

EvBladeRunnervE
09-12-2004, 03:09 PM
on the other hand, you linking to fox news while talking about ethics is pretty funny.

exactly, at least CNN tries to stick to the truth once in a while.

Vicious
09-12-2004, 03:11 PM
People at CNN and Fox News, really get on my nerves sometimes.

(Although I do like CNN)

But I get my news from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

:)

sean
09-12-2004, 03:11 PM
CNN was given the challenge to turn over all internal memos while Fox News did the same, to see who gave a more intenful bias. CNN never even replied. I'm not gonna say that Fox News isn't right wing, but the left wing bias on CNN is disgusting. Just because you agree does not mean it's factual.

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 03:15 PM
edit: on the other hand, you linking to fox news while talking about ethics is pretty funny.uh, I linked to a pdf that is on all the sites.

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 03:17 PM
it shouldn't surprise anyone that libs hate foxnews. I mean, the fact that they actually show the other side of the argument should bother them.

Vicious
09-12-2004, 03:20 PM
I watch both actually, The only reason I choose one over the other is because of the actual news persons themselves.

sean
09-12-2004, 03:23 PM
Greta Van Susteran is a severe hottie...

Vicious
09-12-2004, 03:24 PM
Greta Van Susteran is a severe hottie...

ROFL, yeah, she makes me feel funny too. :D

EvBladeRunnervE
09-12-2004, 03:30 PM
she looks like Johny Quest(mouth is only facial aspect that moves).

sean
09-12-2004, 03:31 PM
Her mouth moves?

Vicious
09-12-2004, 03:33 PM
MMMM Hotness..

sean
09-12-2004, 03:37 PM
Does anyone know how to get tongue-prints off an LCD screen?

edit: Is that a jpeg or mpeg? Hard to tell...

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 03:51 PM
you guys are nasty

Govtcheez
09-12-2004, 05:11 PM
> I mean, the fact that they actually show the other side of the argument should bother the

That's weird, I don't remember saying what I watched.

I don't give a crap that Fox has a conservative bias. Not at all. The fact is, they frequently lie, or at the very least, distort facts. The fact that far more Fox viewers than any other source believe that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 and that we've found giant stockpiles of WMD in Iraq should tell you something.

Vicious
09-12-2004, 05:17 PM
I dont understand how anyone could think that Saddam has a direct link with 9/11.

The 9/11 commision stated the there was deffinately not any link between the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq.

I dont care what channel you watch, you shouldnt automatically believe anything just because a certain reporter said it.

But I was serious about The Daily Show Its the most unbiased news program out there.

Govtcheez
09-12-2004, 05:25 PM
> But I was serious about The Daily Show Its the most unbiased news program out there.

Jon Stewart has said several times that he's really scared that people like TDS as one of their main news sources. It's a hilarious show, but the audience is annoying as hell. I'm pretty damn liberal, but it'd be nice for him to be able to say something negative about someone on "the other side" without the audience cheering.

Thantos
09-12-2004, 05:27 PM
I'm pretty damn liberal Now theres an understatement ;)

Vicious
09-12-2004, 05:32 PM
but it'd be nice for him to be able to say something negative about someone on "the other side" without the audience cheering.

I agree there.

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 05:40 PM
> I mean, the fact that they actually show the other side of the argument should bother the

That's weird, I don't remember saying what I watched.

I don't give a crap that Fox has a conservative bias. Not at all. The fact is, they frequently lie, or at the very least, distort facts. The fact that far more Fox viewers than any other source believe that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 and that we've found giant stockpiles of WMD in Iraq should tell you something.I don't know anyone who thinks we found stockpiles. Do you?

By the way, nothing like this CBS thing can be tagged on Foxnews. If you disagree, that's one thing. But you accused them of being unethical.

sean
09-12-2004, 06:06 PM
I think Govtcheez was referring to Fox News being unethical in different ways. Just commenting on how you linked to Fox News, a network he considers unethical, to point out something unethical in someone else.

And I don't believe Fox News ever reported in it's news broadcasts that they had found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. If it's been said, it's been said on editorial talk shows.

edit: And I don't think Saddam was directly involved in Sept. 11th. I certainly think he was indirectly involved, whether the 9/11 comission says so or not. They don't have all the facts (though I do admit, neither do I). And even then, WMDs are not the only reason he went. Someone should've taken out that whole family a long time ago. A couple of weeks before the US started taking actions in Iraq, Udai walked into the middle of a wedding with other armed men, raped the wife, shot her in the head, then shot her husband in the head, and left.

Govtcheez
09-12-2004, 06:10 PM
> I don't know anyone who thinks we found stockpiles. Do you?

Unfortunately, I do. That, and people who think those couple of sarin shells we found a few months ago justified the invasion.

> And I don't believe Fox News ever reported in it's news broadcasts that they had found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. If it's been said, it's been said on editorial talk shows.

On all cable news channels, the line between real news and editorial crap is blurred to the point of nonexistance. There needs to be a way to hold them accountable.

> Now theres an understatement

First against the wall.

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 06:14 PM
you're right. I do think Rather should be held accountable. Not jail time necessarily. But some sort of fine would suffice.

sean
09-12-2004, 06:14 PM
There needs to be a way to hold them accountable.

I think that internal-memo-turn-over would work.

Govtcheez
09-12-2004, 06:16 PM
you're right. I do think Rather should be held accountable. Not jail time necessarily. But some sort of fine would suffice.
Did Rather make them himself? Was he even the one that made them public? Just because he's the most obvious target doesn't make him the best. How about Bob Novak revealing a Democratic Congressman's wife as a CIA spy? That one would be jail time, under normal circumstances.

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 06:22 PM
regardless of who made them, Rather is not stupid. He knows they're fake. Whatever else he knows remains to be seen, but his cover-up is illegal.

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 06:27 PM
oh, and your right about the Novac case (except that the same democratic congressman was mouthing off about it before then). But certainly the media is a problem.

One fix could be elimination of "editorials". The opinion pieces are the biggest problem. I for one have never been able to figure out how it is ethical for a newspaper to endorse canditates. How can you be impartial if you have explicitly chosen sides?

sean
09-12-2004, 06:28 PM
In that case, most CBS employees who had anything to do with the project should be tried. While I agree, I do think cheez is right - he's definately not the worst of 'em.

edit: And who said newspapers were supposed to be impartial? I do agree though. The media is wayy out of hand. I really think they need to make some changes to the 1st Ammendment.

FillYourBrain
09-12-2004, 06:36 PM
no, no. freedom of speech is a great right. But perhaps you should lose the distinction of being considered a news source if you throw opinion in there. Opinion should probably be reserved for separate publications

Vicious
09-12-2004, 06:38 PM
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

sean
09-12-2004, 06:40 PM
I'm not saying freedom of speech is not a great right. Without it you turn into a police state and a dictator-ship. I just think that all too often people lie, or practice other forms of speech that are clearly harmful, and manage to hide behind the 1st ammendment. For a separate example, Freedom of assembly. Now that was put in their to allow people to practice their religion, have things like political conventions. But if people are convening with the purpose of causing harm to the country, they can easily hide behind freedom of assembly if police break up the gathering. Now granted, you can easily get into a Red Scare / McCarthyism situation here, but I really do think that as it is, the 1st Ammendment is abused.

Govtcheez
09-12-2004, 07:59 PM
> regardless of who made them, Rather is not stupid. He knows they're fake. Whatever else he knows remains to be seen, but his cover-up is illegal.

He may know now, but you've got no evidence at all that he knew beforehand or participated in making them in the first place.

exluddite
09-12-2004, 08:42 PM
no, no. freedom of speech is a great right. But perhaps you should lose the distinction of being considered a news source if you throw opinion in there. Opinion should probably be reserved for separate publications

I don't know about that. I read a book a while back by Ben Bagdikian (sp?) called "The Media Monopoly" that had some interesting observations in it. For one thing, media outlets are owned by someone, they WILL have a bias in their reporting.
After reading it, I saw that the New York Times had aquired the Boston Globe. According to The Times, The Globe would retain editorial autonomy. Watching McNeil Lehrer that evening they said that The Boston Globe would retain editorial autonomy...for five years.
Another thing that he pointed out was that the newspapers in the early days of America were unabashedly biased. You knew their bias as soon as you read the headlines. And why not? You know what you're getting. If you want to see both sides (or more) of the issue, get a few papers and draw your own conclusions.
I'd rather see that than the "unbiased" journalism that we have today.

itld
09-12-2004, 08:53 PM
Howdy,
I don't believe most of what I hear on "Network News" and even less during an election cycle.

M.R.

Vicious
09-12-2004, 09:38 PM
doob, Thats what I thought at first. But I dont know. If you look at that document...

And would an old type-writer like that have a (th) symbol?

[edit]
I was replaying to d00b's post but he deleted it..
:(

d00b
09-12-2004, 11:24 PM
Most typewriters from the time could produce a superscript "th"... in fact, the same "th" appears on other, official Bush records.

Variable-spaced fonts have been available on typewriters since the 1940's.

Times Roman was created in the 1930's, and the font used in the documents doesn't even match MS Times New Roman.

Take a typewriting class, one of the first things you'll learn is how to center text.

The scanned documents floating around on the internet are "copies of copies". So-called analysts and experts aren't even judging the actual documents, but they're making WILD claims of being able to make accurate judgements about them.



Nobody on this board has seen the actual documents, so saying, "They're real!", or, "They're forgeries!", instantly makes you a lemming moron.

Personally, I don't give a care about the issue. But hey, some people like this kinda stuff, it makes them feel like they're contributing to "politics" somehow.

Mmm... go ahead, bring the negative rep my way. :p

Vicious
09-12-2004, 11:28 PM
I think its just the thrill of the controversy. It clouds most peoples common sense.
I am a huge victim of this as it happens to me quite regularly. I hear something like this and I look for reasons (in this case) why it could be fake instead of why it could be real.

BMJ
09-12-2004, 11:28 PM
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

This guy is an obviously blind...

Please don't get all weird if you think one way or another on the issue... I'm just saying, this particular guy needs glasses, and possibly more information (standard text kerning, typewriters, TTF and Windows, etc).

Vicious
09-13-2004, 12:05 AM
this particular guy needs

By that you mean the guy who wrote that article, and not me right?
:)

[edit]
Go to that link I posted and in the "original" look at the words memo and SUBJECT... if you look close, you will see that the letters are not straight. (They are not perfectly parallel with each other)

If you take time and really look at that thing, it really does look like a typewriter printout.

novacain
09-13-2004, 04:57 AM
Fake or not, are they accurate?
Does it matter?

Why has no other servicemen come forward to back up GWB? We have plenty of vets talking about Kerry's service.

Either way it looks like he got preferential treatment and was not sent to Vietnam at a time when 50 US servicemen were dying a day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

All that is needed is 'plausable denyability'.
Look at the US POW abuse. The initial IRC reports (and UK images) were dismissed.


On a related note....

Freedom of the press does not extend to the 'democracy' the US is installing in Iraq.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040807_595.html
"They have been showing a lot of crimes and criminals on TV, and they transfer a bad picture about Iraq and about Iraqis and encourage criminals to increase their activities,"

That couldn't be because the attacks from the insurgents are increasing rapidly?

He said the closure inhibits the "right of the Arab people around the world to see a comprehensive picture about what's going on in an important region like Iraq."

Nor does it include the US if you say things the US does not like.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.aljazeera.nyse.ap.ap/

FillYourBrain
09-13-2004, 05:51 AM
why have no service men come forward? A couple of the CBS "sources" have come forward and said they were misled and manipulated by CBS. They have come forward on other media outlets. That's right, the evil conservative media outlets. But they were the same people CBS sited as having backed up the story. CBS response? We believed them the first time we talked to them. PLEEEAAASE!!!! They manipulated them and quoted them out of context without letting them see the documents.

FillYourBrain
09-13-2004, 05:54 AM
doob, the argument you make is the same that CBS put forward. These features may have been available at that time in various different high-end models. The sum total of all of these features certainly would not have existed in something that this guy would have in his office.

CBS has not adequately answered the critics and is attempting to let the story die quietly. I hope people don't let that happen.

An easy fix? Reproduce the docs with a typewriter that existed at that time in the way that we have done with Microsoft Word. If it could have been done we would see it out there already. It can't.

novacain
09-15-2004, 12:31 AM
>>why have no service men come forward? A couple of the CBS "sources" have come forward and said they were misled and manipulated by CBS. They have come forward on other media outlets. That's right, the evil conservative media outlets.<<

I think you misunderstand.

What I ment was that if GWB had served as his record states then there would have been other servicemen who would have seen him, ie his planes ground crew.

All it needs is one to say "I served with GWB in '73"

Why has none come forward to debunk the claims he deserted or went AWOL?

Seeing it has been 4 years since this question was raised and a $10,000 reward was offered.

(or have they and I have missed the reports?)

Either way this issue is just a smokescreen to hide that the cost of Iraq, in both US lives and money, is getting out of control and most of the world now distrusts the US (or is 'supporting' the US for the bribes it gives ie Free Trade Agreements).

FillYourBrain
09-15-2004, 05:23 AM
oh I see. I for one am not remotely interested in either candidate's military service any more than I am interested in their SAT scores. Ancient history. They were both foolish for touting their records at the start of their campaigns. Possible forgery to influence a campaign however... Not ancient history. A very big deal.

By the way, the former secretary for Killian just chimed in. She claims that if these were legit, she would have typed them. She did not. Dan Rather is looking more and more foolish every day.

FillYourBrain
09-15-2004, 05:50 AM
wow, thanks for the negative rep. Not sure what that was for since all it said was:

you're a I am sillyI am sillyI am sillygot

Vicious
09-15-2004, 11:52 AM
Really? I got a


stupid I am sillyI am sillyI am silly

:(