PDA

View Full Version : The CBS-Dan Rather Conspiracy



BlackRain
09-11-2004, 12:49 PM
CBS-Dan Rather Conspiracy

conspiracy: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) Dan Rather is attempting to discredit the President with forged documents. Where did Dan Rather get these documents? What motive would Dan Rather have for airing documents that were not properly vetted? Who stands to gain from discrediting the President in an election cycle?

http://www.bobcook.com/FR/cuba1a.jpg
Dan Rather in happier times.


Hodges says he didn't validate memos for CBS... is Dan Rather lying?

NYPost article: "In another challenge to CBS, Killian's boss, retired Maj. Gen. Bobby W. Hodges, told ABC News that he regards the documents as a computer "fraud," never saw them in the 1970s and didn't validate them for CBS. A senior CBS official had claimed to the Washington Post that Hodges had validated the documents. During his national news broadcast, Rather claimed "partisan political operatives" are challenging the memos but omitted the fact that Killian's widow and son dispute them...”

The NewYorkPost has a news story that reveals CBS anchor Dan Rather may have caught in their own fraudulent claims. At issue: the Bush memos and CBS’s claim that retired Major Gen. Bobby W. Hodges had validated the memos. The problem: Major Ge. Hodges denies he validated them.

On his CBS News show Friday, Rather there's no "definitive evidence" to refute the authenticity of documents about President Bush's National Guard service — and closed with this:

"If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far there is none."

Meanwhile, the ‘unimpeachable’ CBS evidence continues to be questioned. CBS/Rather made much about their analysis expert, Marcel Matley. But according to the Post article:

But Matley is primarily a handwriting expert whose expertise in document evaluation has been challenged by the head of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners.

Matley spoke only about a signature and initials purported to be those of the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian — "they are his signatures" — though two of the four memos are unsigned.

Another glaring problem: the documents obtained by CBS are not originals. They are only photocopies, and this sends up a big red flag with document experts. Excerpt from Post article:

Allan Haley — a typeface expert at Agfa Monotype — said anyone who claims to definitively authenticate a photocopy "is either guessing or is a fool."

But perhaps the more insulting claim during Rather’s Friday rebuttal was this: Rather said ‘partisan political operatives’ were challenging the memos. Did he mean to include Killian’s widow and son as ‘political operatives’??? Both are hotly contesting the validity of the documents. Killian’s widow says her deceased husband did not type. And Killian’s son says they are not authentic.


------------------------


QUOTABLES:

"I love my father very much but he's doing this for purely political reasons. He is a big Kerry fundraiser and he is writing a book also. And [the Bush story] is what he's leading the book off with . . . He denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out [of Vietnam service]. Now he's saying he did." -- Amy Barnes, daughter of Ben Barnes. (9/10/2004)


---------------------

Man named in Bush memo left Guard before document was written

BY PETE SLOVER
The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" President Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.

An order obtained by The Dallas Morning News shows that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972. CBS News reported this week that a memo in which Staudt was described as interfering with officers' negative evaluations of Bush's service, was dated Aug. 18, 1973.

That added to mounting questions about the authenticity of documents that seem to suggest Bush sought special favors and did not fulfill his service.

Staudt, who lives in New Braunfels, Texas, did not return calls seeking comment. His discharge paper was among a packet of documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News from official sources during 1999 research into Bush's Guard record.

A CBS staffer stood by the story, suggesting that Staudt could have continued to exert influence over Guard officials. But a former high-ranking Guard official disputed that, saying retirement would have left Staudt powerless over remaining officials.

The authenticity of the memo and three others included in Wednesday's "60 Minutes" report came in for heavy criticism Friday, prompting an unusual on-air defense of the original work. Experts on typography said they appeared to have been computer-drafted on equipment not available in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

And the family of the officer who supposedly wrote them, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984, said it wasn't his nature to keep detailed personal notes.

In its network news broadcast Friday, CBS said the documents were supported by both unnamed witnesses and others, including document examiners.

Earlier, CBS anchor Dan Rather told The Dallas Morning News that he had heard nothing to make him question the legitimacy of the memos. He attributed the backlash to partisan politics and competitive journalism.

"This story is true. The questions we raised about then-Lieutenant Bush's National Guard service are serious and legitimate," he said, expressing confidence the memos are authentic. "Until and unless someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill."

The interview concluded before The Dallas Morning News determined the date of Staudt's departure, so that issue was not included. But a CBS staffer with extensive knowledge of the story said later that the departure doesn't derail the story.

"From what we've learned, Staudt remained very active after he retired," the staffer said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "He was a very bullying type, and that could have continued."

In the "60 Minutes" report, Rather said of the memo's contents: "Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to `sugar coat' an evaluation of Lt. Bush."

Staudt was the person Bush initially contacted about Guard service, and he was the group commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston when Bush arrived there to fly an F-102 jet. He later transferred to Austin, where he served as the chief of staff for the Air National Guard.

In the disputed memo, Killian supposedly wrote "(another officer) gave me a message today from group regarding Bush's (evaluation) and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it."

It continues: "Austin is not happy either."

The CBS staffer said that the memo appears to recognize that Staudt has retired, since it differentiates between his displeasure and that of Austin, where he served his final Guard stint.

But another Texas Air National Guard official who served in that period said the memo appears to wrongly associate Staudt with his group command in Houston, and - based on that mistake - the memo distinguishes his views from that of the Austin Guard headquarters.

Retired Col. Earl Lively, who was director of Air National Guard operations for the state headquarters during 1972 and 1973 said Staudt "wasn't on the scene" after retirement, and that CBS' remote-bullying thesis makes no sense.

"He couldn't bully them. He wasn't in the Guard," Lively said. "He couldn't affect their promotions. Once you're gone from the Guard, you don't have any authority."

The report about the memos originally appeared to stir anew longstanding questions about Bush's Guard service, including whether he defied a direct order to take a physical exam, and whether his suspension from flying was partly for failure to meet military performance standards.

The campaign of Bush's Democratic rival, John Kerry, stood mostly mum, saying Bush should answer all questions about his service. Earlier this year, though, Kerry aides raised the exact points the memo seemed to address.

Bush has not commented publicly about the CBS report, and aides say his honorable discharge proves he fulfilled his obligations.

But the White House, which contends that all known records of Bush's service have been released, also took the unusual step of distributing the CBS memos to reporters the night of the broadcast.

"We don't know whether the (CBS) documents were fabricated or are authentic," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday.

BlackRain
09-11-2004, 01:10 PM
Washington Times: Killian Memo Signatures Forged

Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times reports this morning that the signatures on the memos CBS produced to bolster its claim of preferential treatment for George Bush during his National Guard duty are forged:


Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, said yesterday there is another flaw in the CBS memos. Mr. Hussey studied the known signatures of Col. Killian on Air Force documents, and two signatures on documents dated 1972 and 1973 that aired on "60 Minutes" Wednesday night.

"It is my limited opinion that Killian did not sign those documents," Mr. Hussey told The Washington Times. He said he uses the phrase "limited opinion" because he does not have the original documents. He, like other experts interviewed by the press, relied on copies of originals first obtained by CBS.


Dan Rather had earlier tried to pre-empt any debate about the documents by producing the CBS expert who ****ounced the documents genuine, Marcel Matley. However, a quick search on both men's names is revealing. Googling Hussey leads to eight links, all to professional document-examiner associations. However, Googling Matley results in at least one instance of Matley's questionable and controversial media ****ouncements. Matley's support of another weird conspiracy theory is quoted at Justice For Kurt, a website dedicated to the notion that grunge pioneer Kurt Cobain did not commit suicide but instead was murdered. Matley suggested that Cobain's suicide note is a forgery:

As to the last four lines, there are more than a dozen differences that should give us pause, and we would have to reasonable explain these differences before we can conclude that the same person wrote the four lines that wrote the body of it.

A number of readers also have informed me that Matley served on the commission that determined Vince Foster's suicide note was genuine, although that seemed to me at the time and now to be a reasonable judgement.

Far more interesting to me is the ethics of Matley, as described in a very revealing article he wrote titled "The Expert Ambush: How To Hold Off Your Opponent Until The Cavalry Arrives", which advises how to stall and obfuscate when presented with expert testimony damaging to your case. Not only is the article a roadmap for Dan Rather's defense so far, but it also shows that Matley is an experienced partisan who focuses much more on beating his opponent than on getting his testimony right.

So now we have the following discrepancies in the CBS documents:

1. Signatures forged.

2. Pressure allegedly applied is attributed to a command officer who had retired months before the dating of the memo.

3. No letterheads on at least two of the memos.

4. Despite CBS' description of the sourcing for these memos as having come from the personal files of the deceased Jerry Killian, Killian's family insists he kept no personal files.

5. Retired General Bobby Hodges, whom CBS claimed authenticated the material within the memos, now says that CBS lied to him about the documents. He was told that the memos were handwritten in Killian's handwriting. His conclusion that they reflected Killian's sentiments was based on that information, since CBS never showed him the documents. He has now stated he believes them to be forgeries.

6. Killian's family insists that Killian couldn't type well and avoided it whenever possible.

7. Killian's family insists that Killian retained a high opinion of George Bush until Killian died in 1984, and was proud to have been the officer to pin Bush's wings to his chest.

8. The memos vary widely from required Air Force format at the time -- although they come much closer to the more modern Air Force format, first used in the 1990s, suggesting that the creator of the documents only has exposure to recent military procedure. Since Killian died in 1984, he could not possibly have written them.

9. The typography in these memos could only have been done by a typesetting system. While several of the features in the memos could possibly have been created by using various types of typesetting machines in the 1970s, no one has come up with one machine that could do all of them simultaneously in 1972 and 1973, nor explain why a Texas Air National Guard base would own one, or why a reserve Lieutenant Colonel would use one to write memos to his personal files -- especially since the colonel in question hated to type.

Until CBS can answer these questions and produce the original documents for analysis, the logical conclusion is that these documents are clumsy forgeries and were produced by someone looking to smear George Bush. CBS' insistence on protecting its source and refusal to investigate its own actions in publishing this story points to an awareness of journalistic practices that are at best sloppy, and at worst fraudulent.

scm77
09-11-2004, 02:16 PM
This is just an attempt to slander CBS by the Republicans. ;)

http://img32.exs.cx/img32/8190/Rather.jpg
rofl

budanski
09-11-2004, 02:55 PM
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/1945.jpg

catchv22
09-11-2004, 04:33 PM
It's amazing at what lengths people will do to slander someone... I mean if your candidate isn't going to get into the white house... just live with it. The world isn't going to end... Reporters making up stuff is just pathetic.

[SAB]Grey
09-11-2004, 04:43 PM
I get it now:

Reporting something bad about Bush or his administration = Conspiracy/lie

Reporting something bad about Kerry = good reporting/truth

I think I've got it now.

It's all nonsense anyhow I don't need to go back farther than 4 years to figure out why Bush is a terrible president.

Trigger
09-11-2004, 04:45 PM
Bye bye Dan. We'll miss you terribly and think of you often. :lol:

Trigger
09-11-2004, 04:48 PM
Grey]I get it now:

Reporting something bad about Bush or his administration = Conspiracy/lie

Reporting something bad about Kerry = good reporting/truth

I think I've got it now.

It's all nonsense anyhow I don't need to go back farther than 4 years to figure out why Bush is a terrible president.
Correction:
Reporting something COMPLETELY MADE UP about Bush = stupid as hell, but par for the course for CBS and other media whores.
Reporting something bad (and possibly true) about Kerry = rarely if ever happens.
Hope that helps. I'd hate for you to have it all backwards... :hug:

scm77
09-11-2004, 04:57 PM
Correction:
Reporting something COMPLETELY MADE UP about Bush = stupid as hell, but par for the course for CBS and other media whores.


rofl

BlackRain
09-11-2004, 05:23 PM
Still believe the Dan Rather forgery documents are real? Put down the crack pipe for a minute and gander at this!


Here is an animated GIF, alternating between a Microsoft Word document version and the CBS News “original.” I guess they Texas Air National Guard must of had a PC with MS Word installed in 1972.

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif

scm77
09-11-2004, 05:29 PM
defeatjohnjohn.com said to run the MS Word one through a fax machine and you will get an (almost) exact copy.

scm77
09-11-2004, 05:52 PM
Here's what the Dan Rather memos SHOULD look like.

http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/grounded.gif

That style of letters, spacing etc.

usa320
09-11-2004, 06:07 PM
http://politicalities.typepad.com/photos/politicalities/clippy.PNG

OB Kenobi
09-11-2004, 07:06 PM
You conspiracy nuts need to get a life. rofl

"This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s."

There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.

And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.

For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.

So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.

"Documents back then didn't have superscripted 'th' characters"

That one was easy. Yes, many typewriter models had shift-combinations to create 'th', 'nd', and 'rd'. This is most easily proven by looking at known-good documents in the Bush records, which indeed have superscripted 'th' characters interspersed throughout.

"This document uses proportional spacing, which didn't exist in the early 1970s."

Turns out, it did. The IBM Executive electric typewriter was manufactured in four models, A, B, C, and D, starting in 1947, and featured proportional spacing. An example of its output is here. It was an extremely popular model, and was marketed to government agencies.

"OK, fine, but no single machine had proportional spacing, 'th' characters, and a font like that one."

No, again. The IBM Executive is probably the most likely candidate for this particular memo. There is some confusion about this, so to clear up: the IBM Selectric, while very popular, did not have proportional spacing. The Selectric Composer, introduced in 1966, did, and in fact could easily have produced these memos, but it was a very expensive machine, and not likely to be used for light typing duties. The proportional-spacing Executive, on the other hand, had been produced in various configurations since the 1940's, and was quite popular.


http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbtest.gwb.jpg

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbtest.wjc.jpg

http://www.tagliners.org/pics/signs.jpg

http://www.matthewstinson.com/blog/files/tinfoil-hat-emmy.jpg

American Patriot
09-11-2004, 08:19 PM
Retired Col. Maurice Udell, the unit's instructor pilot who helped train Bush, said Friday he thought the documents were fake.

"I completely am disgusted with this (report) I saw on '60 Minutes,'" Udell said. "That's not true. I was there. I knew Jerry Killian. I went to Vietnam with Jerry Killian in 1968."

Killian's son also questioned some of the documents, saying his father would never write a memo like the "sugar coat" one.

Several of the document examiners said one clue that the documents may be forgeries was the presence of superscripts - in this case, a raised, smaller "th" in two references to Guard units.

Rather said typewriters were available in the early 1970s which were capable of printing superscripts. CBS pointed to other Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House that include an example of a raised "th" superscript.

That superscript, however, is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos. Document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., who examined the documents for the AP, said she was "virtually certain" they were generated by computer.

Lines said that meant she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer.

CBS has not revealed its source or sources for the documents or the names of experts besides Matley it said examined the memos before Wednesday's report.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday the White House, which distributed the memos after obtaining them from CBS News, was not trying to verify their authenticity. "We don't know if the documents are fabricated or authentic," McClellan told reporters traveling with the president to West Virginia.

McClellan suggested the memos surfaced as part of "an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign to tear down the president."

I have achieved full erection now.

:ding.....dong:

What's that? I think it's the death knell for the Kerry campaign

:bang, bang, tap, tap, tap:

And that's another nail in the coffin!

scm77
09-11-2004, 08:49 PM
http://img74.exs.cx/img74/5695/death3.jpg
Times running out. :lol:

BlackRain
09-12-2004, 09:20 AM
"This typeface -- Times New Roman -- didn't exist in the early 1970s."

There are several problems with this theory. First, Times New Roman, as a typeface, was invented in 1931. Second, typewriters were indeed available with Times New Roman typefaces.

And third, this isn't Times New Roman, at least not the Microsoft version. It's close. But it's not a match.

For example, the '8' characters are decidedly different. The '4's, as viewable on other memos, are completely different; one has an open top, the other is closed.

So yes, we have proven that two typefaces that look similar to each other are indeed, um, similar. At least when each document is shrunk to 400-500 pixels wide... and you ignore some of the characters.


While it is true that "Times New Roman" did exist in the 1930's. It was proprietory for use in the "The Times" newspaper.

It was NOT licensed into use by individuals and corporations until Microsoft and Apple licensed it in the 1980's.


In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.

The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".

Please explain this then?

Here is an animated GIF, alternating between a Microsoft Word document version and the CBS News “original.”


http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif

Seriously, are you going to apologize to the members of this forum for spreading an obvious hoax?

New this morning. Another nail in the forgery-Dan Rather-DNC coffin:


Former Guard colonel disputes authenticity of memos

BY PETE SLOVER AND TANYA EISERER

The Dallas Morning News


DALLAS - (KRT) - A former Texas Air National Guard colonel relied upon by CBS News to support the authenticity of memos about President Bush's military service said he never saw the memos before the show aired, and that he doesn't now believe they are authentic.

Retired Col. Bobby Hodges of Arlington, Texas, also said that one of the memos' references to undue pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's evaluations rings false. He said the colonel that supposedly applied that pressure did not interfere in Guard affairs after his retirement, 18 months before the date on the disputed memo.

A CBS spokeswoman said that, despite Hodges remarks, CBS' "60 Minutes" stands by the program aired on Wednesday.

"We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke to him. We believe the documents are genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it," Sandy Genelius said.

BlackRain
09-12-2004, 10:01 AM
For those who seek the real story on the forgeries, here is a Flash Animation demonstrating how it was accomplished.

http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf

Dennis G
09-12-2004, 02:51 PM
What's amazing to me is how everything the Dems are trying is backfiring. The mainstream media are beside themselved trying to elect Kerry, and yet Bush's lead widens daily.

It's kind of embarassing to watch... except that I am glad they are exposing themselves for what they are and their once vaunted status of influence has been squandered.

Soon, I expect to see Dan Rather sitting behind a desk, staring into a TV camera while slightly shaking his head from right to left and uttering the words, "I'm not a crook!"

It really doesnt matter, it comes down to if you want a dog that will go out and hunt( Bush) or a dog that will wait and retreive(Kerry).

ogukuo72
09-12-2004, 11:07 PM
Indeed, this is so inept that I am beginning to wonder if this is not some sort of clever trap set by the Bush campaign for a media that is all too eager to hang up dirty laundry of Bush. :D

Then, all that has to be done is to discredit this story, and this will effectively kill off Bush's ANG service as an election issue. The media won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole after the story blows up in CBS' face.

If this is true, then Bush (or his advisors) is a master strategist and should be elected to a second term! :D

HooyahCQB
09-12-2004, 11:32 PM
That doesn't mean **** OB, because the author is said to have not written memos on typewriters, liked typing at all, and spoke highly of Bush.

Even if the memo is correctly done with the right typewriter, it won't matter. If the above is true, the docs were forged, even if they were forged in the right way.... lol

Durandal
09-13-2004, 12:36 AM
For those who seek the real story on the forgeries, here is a Flash Animation demonstrating how it was accomplished.

http://img41.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img41&image=60minbusted.swf

That was great.

Nice and simply for all the slow kids.

Kilgor
09-13-2004, 08:25 AM
dupe

2Sheds_Jackson
09-13-2004, 01:31 PM
Indeed, this is so inept that I am beginning to wonder if this is not some sort of clever trap set by the Bush campaign for a media that is all too eager to hang up dirty laundry of Bush. :D

Then, all that has to be done is to discredit this story, and this will effectively kill off Bush's ANG service as an election issue. The media won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole after the story blows up in CBS' face.

If this is true, then Bush (or his advisors) is a master strategist and should be elected to a second term! :D

rofl I agree. If the Bush team truly are clever enough to trash Kerry so completely - it only means that they are unquestionably the best ones for the job.

Bootneck
09-14-2004, 12:14 PM
;)



September 14, 2004, 10:22 a.m.

Rather, the Sequel
A parody. Or perhaps a premonition?

By George Conway

6 of 30 DOCUMENTS

Copyright 2004 Amalgamated Press
All Rights Reserved
Amalgamated Press Online

These materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The Amalgamated Press

September 25, 2004 Saturday

HEADLINE: CBS Stands By Claim of Bush National Guard Payoff

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:

Faced with the second major controversy this month about its reporting on President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News on Friday defended its report that President Bush had used $3 bills to bribe Texas Air National Guard officials in 1973.

The latest dispute erupted after the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" reported earlier this week that Bush had used several thousand $3 bills to buy the silence of National Guard officials who were questioning whether he had met his service obligations. The program featured color photocopies of some of the currency allegedly used to pay the bribes.

Conservative critics on the Internet immediately cried foul, claiming that there was no such thing as a $3 bill, and some news organizations later quoted "experts" as expressing doubt that such a denomination ever existed.

Claims were also made that the bills were "doctored" versions of recent $5 bills. Some of the bills, while containing 3's in each corner, bear the text "FIVE DOLLARS." The bills contain portraits of former President William Jefferson Clinton that appear roughly one centimeter left of center on the face of the bills.

The right-wing critics contend that the Treasury Department did not begin printing currency with left-of-center portraits until the mid-1990s. They also argue that Clinton's portrait would not have appeared on currency in 1973, 20 years before he became president.

The critics also assert that the copies of the bills were produced by color imaging and printing methods that weren't available three decades ago.

CBS has declined to say where the bills came from, but has said they came from "solid sources."

On Friday's "CBS Evening News," anchor Dan Rather said that "no definitive evidence" had emerged to prove the currency was not authentic.

"As with the earlier memos, if any definitive evidence comes up, we will report it," Rather said.

The show broadcast an excerpt of an interview with Terry McAuliffe, a currency expert, who said that the $3 bills were genuine. In Friday night's report, McAuliffe said, "I've handled a lot of cash in my life, and I can't say that I've never seen a $3 bill. These bills look real to me. But if they aren't real, then I'm sure Karl Rove had something to do with them."

The CBS report stated "with absolute certainty" that the disputed currency could have been produced by the government in the early 1970s.

According to CBS, its sources in the United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing had confirmed that the government had the capability of producing $3 bills in 1973. Rather said that "Treasury officials acknowledge that the government was able to print a '3' just as easily as it could print a '1', '2', or a '5.'"

Independent experts consulted by the Amalgamated Press appear to share this view. A leading practitioner of numerology said that "the number '3', like the other Arabic numerals, has been around a long time." According to the numerologist, who requested anonymity, the number '3' dates back to at least the 6th century AD, and perhaps earlier. "There's no question the United States government was aware of the number before 1973 and easily could have put it on legal tender," she said.

The CBS program also pointed out that several of the documents found in Bush's official National Guard files used the number '3'. The number appears, for example, in the date "1973," the year some of the documents were created.

"These documents demonstrate conclusively that the number '3' was available for use by the government in the early 70s," said CBS's Rather, who reported both the Friday segment and the earlier "60 Minutes II" piece.

Noting that Clinton was born in 1946, CBS's consulting experts also stated that it was entirely possible that the future president could have posed for a portrait before 1973.

Nevertheless, the network's right-wing critics continued to deny the possibility that the $3 bills were real.

One blogger's online post exclaimed: "It's RIDICULOUS that we're even DISCUSSING the possibility of a $3 bill. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase "queer as a $3 bill"? It only makes sense because there is NO SUCH THING as a $3 bill!!!"

Responding to this claim, a CBS spokesman said, "The credibility of our news organization should not be called into question by the homophobic rants of people in pajamas."

Reached by telephone late last night, the blogger declined to comment on whether he was wearing pajamas.

— George Conway is an attorney in New York City who is familiar with the default settings in Microsoft Word.

mr.x
09-14-2004, 12:46 PM
My fav's from that "article"


The bills contain portraits of former President William Jefferson Clinton that appear roughly one centimeter left of center on the face of the bills.

"There's no question the United States government was aware of the number before 1973 and easily could have put it on legal tender,"

"The credibility of our news organization should not be called into question by the homophobic rants of people in pajamas."

That was funny! Thanks for posting it :P

Meph
09-14-2004, 03:31 PM
uhhh what was this thread about again?

Howitz
09-14-2004, 05:46 PM
some war or something...i think