I'm saying 99% of the people discussing this in every corner of Internetland, taking sides whether they are authentic or forgery, have no clue what they are talking about. <br><br><br><br><br><br>

Also, the new attack to discredit the three documents is that the fonts were self-inflicted. Then they came home and slandered all the other honorable proportional fonts.<br><br>Next up: Forensic Document Specialists for Truth<br><br><br><br>

gary, while I completely understand that you are much more versed in typography than I ever will or will want to be, I refer you to my earlier post of a picture overlaying the word-generated letter with the alleged "original document". I don't feel that I have to be an expert to see that these are almost exactly the same, and in my mind, a few copies/scans could easily account for the differences:<br><br>repost of pic<br><br>neye<br><br>

I agree, and have said most all day long the docs look forged. Now, how do we prove that Rove did it?<br><br> <br><br>

Just type up a memo saying so and send it to CBS, and thus it will be true.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

Rather is actually saying right now when questioned about these docuements, (and I'm paraphrasing)<br>"The story is true and the documents are authentic, there will be no apology or retraction, it's not even being discussed."<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

i just checked news.google.com and see nothing about the documents even listed as a headline anywhere. <br><br>while i don't know enough about typewriters from the 70s to say one way or the other, i am still amazed at the power of the Internet for creating such hoopla. further, I am amazed that our reactions to the story and to each other is not news in itself. As much energy as has been expended in the last 2 days by legions of regular folk all over should be a story, imho. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Geeze Sean, get your glasses on... (excuse my poor XP screen shot taking skills)<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

Hey Dean . . . as you can see, Rather rushed to get this story to air. Yet, for weeks he has joined in with the Kerry campaign's bashing of the Swift Vets and has yet to sit down and do an interview with ANY ONE of the 250 plus Swift Vets who object to Kerry's Vietnam record. <br><br>Yet, when the opportunity arose for CBS to continue hammering the Bush ANG story, Rather didn't miss a second in getting Ben Barnes on the air. Where's the balance and fairness? <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

See Gary, it didn't take long...<br>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-011417-2610r.htm<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003