Forgeries
I am convinced the memos are forgeries. There's a negligible possibility they are not, sorta like the chance monkeys might fly out my butt. Feel free to read yet another in a long list of analyses that show how unreasonable it is to think these are not forgeries.
Here's a quick summary, for those not paying much attention: CBS did a story last week, in which they had some memos from a man named Killian, who died in 1984.
An overwhelming number of experts have offered strong testimony that the typography of the documents is inconsistent with what was available in 1972 and 1973.
CBS said experts verified them, but produced only one expert, who at CBS' request is not answering questions from anyone else, who could verify the signature belonged to Killian, and who could not verify they were originally affixed to the actual document in question, since CBS has only a photocopy.
One other expert came forward, but he only testified what was already essentially conceded, and is irrelevant: that typewriters did exist that could print a "th" superscript and use proportional spacing (which is essentially the only rebuttal CBS has offered to the tyopgraphical evidence, as well). So far, no other experts have come forward supporting the authenticity of the documents.
CBS produced two men who were apparently there, but both testified only that the contents of the memos reflected what Killian thought, not that they were authentic documents. One of the men never saw the documents, and upon seeing them, said he thought they were forgeries.
CBS interviewed members of Killian's family who said they were not authentic, but did not mention this in their report.
CBS has so far refused to give people access to their copies of the documents, or say where they got them.
In their followups, CBS has misrepresented experts who believe the documents are probably fake, and have refused to address all of the most important evidence against their authenticity.
There's more, but these are some of the main points.
My sincere hope is that this causes Americans to stop caring about who did what in Vietnam, but even more, to be much more critical of what the news media (and web sites) claim. Oh, and I hope some editorial staff at CBS and the Boston Globe (who was also misrepresenting the experts, and had their own parallel story about Bush's service record) lose their job over the stonewalling and misrepresentations.
Here's a quick summary, for those not paying much attention: CBS did a story last week, in which they had some memos from a man named Killian, who died in 1984.
An overwhelming number of experts have offered strong testimony that the typography of the documents is inconsistent with what was available in 1972 and 1973.
CBS said experts verified them, but produced only one expert, who at CBS' request is not answering questions from anyone else, who could verify the signature belonged to Killian, and who could not verify they were originally affixed to the actual document in question, since CBS has only a photocopy.
One other expert came forward, but he only testified what was already essentially conceded, and is irrelevant: that typewriters did exist that could print a "th" superscript and use proportional spacing (which is essentially the only rebuttal CBS has offered to the tyopgraphical evidence, as well). So far, no other experts have come forward supporting the authenticity of the documents.
CBS produced two men who were apparently there, but both testified only that the contents of the memos reflected what Killian thought, not that they were authentic documents. One of the men never saw the documents, and upon seeing them, said he thought they were forgeries.
CBS interviewed members of Killian's family who said they were not authentic, but did not mention this in their report.
CBS has so far refused to give people access to their copies of the documents, or say where they got them.
In their followups, CBS has misrepresented experts who believe the documents are probably fake, and have refused to address all of the most important evidence against their authenticity.
There's more, but these are some of the main points.
My sincere hope is that this causes Americans to stop caring about who did what in Vietnam, but even more, to be much more critical of what the news media (and web sites) claim. Oh, and I hope some editorial staff at CBS and the Boston Globe (who was also misrepresenting the experts, and had their own parallel story about Bush's service record) lose their job over the stonewalling and misrepresentations.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment