#1
|
|||
|
|||
0.41 seconds
is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir. Lokvist
took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the overall. The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger. (I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was written before 1973). |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Robert Chung" wrote: is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir. Lokvist took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the overall. The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger. (I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was written before 1973). I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This conclusively proves your post is a forgery. -- tanx, Howard "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
... In article , "Robert Chung" wrote: is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir. Lokvist took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the overall. The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger. (I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was written before 1973). I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This conclusively proves your post is a forgery. http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Kunich wrote:
http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac. I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document purportedly created at time A, where B A, then the document purportedly created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's nuts. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Tom Kunich" wrote: "Howard Kveck" wrote in message ... In article , "Robert Chung" wrote: is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir. Lokvist took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the overall. The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger. (I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was written before 1973). I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This conclusively proves your post is a forgery. http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac. I was mocking some of the people who have styled themselves as experts in the field of document analysis. See, I don't claim to be an expert in this field, and I haven't made up my mind on whether they are or aren't forgeries. A couple of points, though. Some sites I've looked at say that not all documents that are alleged to be from Killian look the same, type-wise. Who's to say whether or not they were all done on the same typewriter, or even by the same person (him or one of several secretaries)? Further, there was a lot of talk about proportional and superscripted types not existing then. A little searching will show that IBM had machines out in '41 that did both of those things, and that the US govt. had them in common useage. As for the fonts matching, well, Times New Roman in Word better look like Times New Roman on a typewriter. The fonts in computers and word processors are made to match the mechanically generated versions of the same name. It is interesting to me that the White House didn't and doesn't dispute any of what the documents said. They aren't pushing back on this at all. I doubt that's because they knew that the blogoshpere would sort it out for 'em. Maybe they want them to go away? The important part of all this is simple: did GWB fulfill his obligation in the TNG? It does not appear to be so. Example: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm As for me voting for Chirac, I don't understand. Chirac is French and... Ooooooooooohhhhhhh, now I get it! You called Kerry Chirac, cuz he's so, you know, French. Damn, that is *so* cute. -- tanx, Howard "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:20:35 +0200, "Robert Chung" wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote: http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac. I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document purportedly created at time A, where B A, then the document purportedly created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's nuts. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type memoranda. Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk. Ron |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Kveck wrote: See, I don't claim to be an expert in this field,... "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein Einstein was not an expert in the field of governance. In appeals to authority, it is beneficial to actually choose an authority. Even then... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
RonSonic wrote:
Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type memoranda. Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk. So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine, then the document is proved to be a forgery. BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...09bushdocs.pdf How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote: So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine, then the document is proved to be a forgery. BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...09bushdocs.pdf How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match? Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a non-issue. You create it, forge the signature and then run it through a copier to disguise the age. The longest part of the process is forging a reasonable signature. How long to create something pretty much the same? A few minutes. Longer to forge a signature. Not that I ever saw a 'CYA' memo in my seven years in the military, not labeled as such. Seems pretty dumb ass to me. The interesting part of this entire event is how many middle-of-the-road to liberal media types are taking CBS to task on the original vetting and their subsequent defense. Its ABC that was the harshest commentator as of this morning - not the favorite whipping boy of the left, Fox. And the direction of this is even more interested when you look at Terry Mcauliffe's remarks. After making the Republicans responsible for anything ever released about Kerry, he now declares the Bush documents were probably planted by Republicans as well. While this may sit well with the core Democrat voters, I'm guessing that it doesn't sit nearly as well with the swing voters. And it seems to pretty much concede that the documents were probably forgeries. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung" wrote: BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...09bushdocs.pdf How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match? Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a non-issue. [...] How long to create something pretty much the same? A few minutes. The claim on LGF was that the memos could be re-created using MS Word defaults, in a few minutes. Try it with the memo dated "04 May 1972." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
90 F*CKING SECONDS | James Calivar | General | 69 | August 2nd 04 11:31 PM |