60 Minutes "documents" fake?

Interesting . . .

Surprised? How can a supposedly intelligent reporter not notice the superscripts and great margins?
I was in during the late 70's and I have never seen a perfect report for less than a General.

while its certainly possible they are fakes (which prompts another question: why would the whitehouse fax have faxed them anywhere?), my sister paid for her masters degree typing dissertations on a selectric in the early 70s; she says she had proportionate type elements (those ball things) with super/subscripting capabilities. they definitely arent typeset. 

DAMM I knew bill gates was behind it all..lol....

so...when the reports are proven a fake...will cbs give a 10 min appology to the president ? or will they most likely gloss over it
????

kingbee, I think you're grasping at straws.

Check out: https://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=27547 it's pretty obvious.

grasping at straws?  like i said, they could be fraudulent.  even if there's absolute proof of their authenticity, the content doesnt trump an honorable discharge.  

she had proportionate type elements (those ball things) with super/subscripting capabilities. they definitely arent typeset.

Now that you remind me, that's technically true, kingbee, but the lettering would be in the same point size, not smaller (the Selectric could shift up or down a half-line, IIRC) - that capability only came with word processing programs. I suppose one could argue that someone could have changed the font ball to a smaller font size, carefully typed the superscripts and switched the font ball back, but arguing that would be like Nixon's secretary trying to explain how she accidentally created the 18-minute gap (remember that picture?). No military typist of the time would have been likely to bother with that, especially if it was Killian personally typing a "CYA" memo. I'll have to go back to Drag's other post - were there transcriptionist initials on that?

The thing is a fraud, anyway, beyond doubt.

Cheers,
Daiwa

It's never for sure, but it sure looks like it.

It matters about as much as Kerry record that is being blown out of proportions. I found a long time ago plenty of info about Bush and how he took his military service for granted and general was known as Mr. Party guy and had the same MO at college. Kerry has a lot more credibility then Bush does, just lousey campaign management is all I see the big problem is. Slap a label on anything and you can sell it providing you market ir properly. Bush has his name brand out there already, while Kerry is not getting the Brand name circulated. Hard to explain unless you know something about business and advertising. To bad that is how politics are as it is not about who is the better man it is about who has the better marketing campaign.

Draginol regardless how I feel about some slanted comments toward Kerry and all, your posts are the best written and well thought out among everyone. Good job keep it up. I love reading your comments I have an RSS feed at my site for joeuser.com along with the new forums I setup for Political Machine and debate forums. We have no democrats or republicans posting right now. If anyone cares to add comments at NeoTech Network we would love to have you. http://www.neotechgaming.com NeoTech Network is growing slowly geared to the Sci-fi lovers out there mainly.. We have information for anyone to enjoy. Hope too see some of you there..

DesertFox: My general political views are much more mild. But my job here is to get discussion going.

Personally, I could care less about what Bush or Kerry were doing 35 years ago to a large degree.