The forged document is supposedly the exact replica of the original. Copied exactly word for word. Font for font. Space by space. The total and exact copy. Or are you telling me that photocopying has a way of turning a 1973 printed document looking exactly like Microsoft Word?

Had it been the original document you’d have discussions on the age and kind of paper used for the memo which would then help authentic the memo. Along with authentic signature and correct type fonts and spacing seen on typewriters used in the early 1970s.

From Washington Post:

“CBS management “coerced” the veteran news anchor “into publicly apologizing and taking personal blame for alleged journalistic errors in the broadcast,” says the $70 million suit, which also names Sumner Redstone, chief executive of the network’s then-parent company, Viacom; CBS Chairman Les Moonves; and former CBS News president Andrew Heyward.

Several former colleagues said they were baffled by the move. “I think he’s gone off the deep end,” said Josh Howard, who was forced to resign as executive producer of “60 Minutes II” after CBS retracted the story. “He seems to be saying he was just the narrator.

“He did every interview. He worked the sources over the phone. He was there in the room with the so-called document experts. He argued over every line in the script. It’s laughable.”

Kevin, he is trying to restore his damaged reputation and will go so far (according to his lawyers) that the documents are authentic. I’ve shown everybody here how that is not the case. It’s the oft repeated meme “fake but accurate” used by Dan Rather. He wants to believe his own story but cannot prove it. Even with the already discredited (according to an independent panel who covered this whole “Memogate”) Killian memos they criticized Dan Rather on the shoddy story and attempt to pass off fake documents as authentic to viewers.

“After serving as “CBS Evening News” anchor for a quarter-century, Rather agreed to relinquish the chair in November 2004, weeks before an outside panel criticized him and top network executives for airing a badly flawed story charging that Bush had received favorable treatment from the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s. He said at the time that he was stepping down voluntarily, but says in the lawsuit that CBS had “terminated” his anchor duties the day after Bush was reelected.”

Same link as above.

I agree. Let the court do this. Already Dan has gone off the deep end still believing in a story that could never be fully proven hanging on to his every fantasy “fake but accurate” story byline.

2) The point of Rather’s report was Bush’s efforts to evade the Vietnam draft by doing pseudoservice in the National Guard. The documents in question were only one line of evidence of this evasion, and obsessing over this one line only serves to divert attention from other compelling lines of evidence.

3) It’s entirely possible that Rather was set up and fed bad evidence to damage his reputation. Whatever the case, he certainly could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by doing more due diligence on the evidence.

4) A key question remains - what happened to the original records? Perhaps one aim of Rather’s lawsuit is to find out. If the original records are located - not likely, I assume they’ve been destroyed by now - then the matter of the copies becomes moot.

5) I don’t see any point in debating the issue further until the court case has played out. Let’s see where the evidence leads, then revisit the question.

The one with the “sprinkles” of dots and such is the purported “authentic” document versus over a Microsoft Word document.

So, that CBS “memo” is a fraud as are all of the “Killian” memos. It has been proven beyond all doubt. Simply impossible that these documents were created on any machine available in the 1970s. And yet Dan Rather and his lawyers are actually planning to argue in their lawsuit against CBS that the phony memos are genuine!!

You want to talk about journalistic standards go down in flames? You’re seeing it right now. And it’ll be a fireball once it hits the court.

“I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers..”

http://web.archive.org/web/200...../index.htm

This is an excellent read. This is the kind of thing that will destroy Dan Rather defense if he continue to say that the document is authentic in a court of law.

The way it was typed did not not reflect the year it was typed which was supposed to have been in 1973. The fonts that was seen in the copy did not even exist in 1973. It’s been shown and proven already by “font experts” who know about the history of typewriters.

Type the memo word for word using the Microsoft Word document shows the spacings and fonts identical in every respect. The date lines up perfectly, all the line breaks are in the same places, all letters line up with the same letters above and below, and the kerning is exactly the same.

I tried it using the pdf file of the memo and typing it out on my computer. Overlay them together and they fit perfectly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/.....gust18.pdf

And here was the result…

If any of the evidence was falsified, I would expect that to come out in court. I think we’d do well to wait and see how well the claims of falsified documents hold up under judicial scrutiny.

The phrase “mainstream media” itself is misleading, but this has nothing to do with Mike. A better name would be “traditional media”.

Why? Because traditional media has become little more than stenographers. They simply repeat what their sources say, with little or no effort to verify the accuracy of what they report. As a result, public opinion has gotten so far out of sync with what traditional media reports that traditional media no longer reflects mainstream opinion.

We have become increasingly skeptical of traditional media, with good reason.

Fox News, CBNnews, Washington Times, WSJ, NY Post, NYTimes, LA Times, Wash Post, Time, PBS represent traditional news sources - but they’re no longer “mainstream”.

As usual, Mike misguided you with his “MSM” comment, I’m sad to say.