A bunch of political slander.
No expert document examiner worth his reputation would give an expert opinion based on what CBS and others now say they have as
evidence. This is evidenced by this statement “And these forensics experts, unlike CBS's,
have names.” Every time a document is copied it is somewhat distorted (spacing, type face, etc change). If copied enough it does not even look like the original document. Look at the wording used here in the news article:
I'm not up to expanding on this inquiry,
but I feel certain that other people will be looking into it.
"Very likely forgeries."
"ABC'S NIGHTLINE DOING THE forgeries tonight, and their experts say
most likely forgeries.”
"The wording in these documents is
very suspect to me," she told ABC News Radio in an exclusive phone interview from her Texas home.
More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they
had doubts about the memos' authenticity.
"These documents
do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence
that's available (
but not the originals) …
indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
This is NOT evidence, it is news hype, speculation, and lies. There is not a definite statement in the whole report! Assassination by implication. CBS and Dan Rather should be sued.
Even if the documents turn up to be forged, the News Media is irresponsible in its reporting. They should report “facts” not “hype.” Of course, those that have been around a while know the media is liberal in its appeals, but for the young voters—they know no better.
If we look hard enough I bet we would find a
Kerry bite (KB, representing quality of evidence as opposed to quantity) of information behind the whole thing! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />
