Tuesday, January 11, 2005

CBS IV

The more you read, the worse it gets. Curious how the Thornburg-Boccardi panel decided that the Killian memos might be real? Read here for the startling answer.

5 comments:

Bizarro Jack said...

If you have a flow chart of which people saw the documents when, and whether they are suspected of being complicit or negligent in its production and publication, I'd love to see it. At this point, anyone who honestly thinks that it was not produced by a computer is just being recalcitrant.

I'm surprised that they didn't claim that they believe(d) it was a legitimate reproduction of an original. That would have been a much better story.

It's all pretty pathetic . . . There's already enough evidence that GWB was a lackluster military man, why did they have to add forged docs to the pile?

Kerry said...

But he wasn't a "lackluster military man". Or do you have some documents to share? Non sequiter nevertheless. This report quote from Jonathan's Weekly Standard writing is a forehead slapper: "Although his reasoning seems credible and persuasive, the Panel does not know for certain whether Tytell has accounted for all alternative typestyles that might have been available on typewriters during that era." I translate this as, "Something we don't know about might have done this" Doh!

Bizarro Jack said...

I thought "lackluster" was a sufficiently ambiguous way of putting it. I'm not accusing him of going AWOL or showing up drunk. Don't play stupid though, this is something that was discussed often for quite some time before these forged documents surfaced.

Here is a google search designed to exclude any mention of the forged docs.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+guard+-cbs+-rather+-killian&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

Anonymous said...

"Although his reasoning seems credible and persuasive, the Panel does not know for certain whether Tytell has accounted for all alternative typestyles that might have been available on typewriters during that era."I applaud the meticulousness of the Panel. There is not, for example, any evidence to refute the possibility that a time machine developed by the Air Force and since destroyed with all associated documentary evidence was not used by that secretary to travel forth in time in order to use Microsoft Word. Take THAT ankle-biting CBS detractors!

Anonymous said...

Nobody showed them the animated GIF comparing the "original" with the same document typed in MS Word? Do these guys even know what MS Word is?