Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:It's so obviously a forgery--maybe done in paint--that the lines aren't even straight.The Kernel wrote:
The evidence is right there in his May 1973 evaluation. Have you read this document?
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
Al Franken is a comedian, and the original source is a newspaper article during the 2000 election. Do I have to remind you that, yes, big city newspapers have of late been caught doing just that, making things up out of thin air, of late?The Kernel wrote:
Buddy, this very same document has been reproduced in other sources including Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. The only reason I went to that site is that I was too lazy to scan it and I just picked this first Google hit. Unless you think a best selling author could get away with producing a false document without being torn to pieces, I suggest you shut up with your stupid conspiracy theories.
Seriously, Howedar, it looks for all the world like something I could easily make in paint, and with some imperfections I'd avoid. There are clear quality mistakes on what would appear to be the physical surface of the document that seem quite inexplicable on a government mass-produced object.Howedar wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure that it's all a big liberal conspiracy set up to discredit the President.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Al Franken is a comedian, and the original source is a newspaper article during the 2000 election. Do I have to remind you that, yes, big city newspapers have of late been caught doing just that, making things up out of thin air, of late?
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Seriously, Howedar, it looks for all the world like something I could easily make in paint, and with some imperfections I'd avoid. There are clear quality mistakes on what would appear to be the physical surface of the document that seem quite inexplicable on a government mass-produced object.Howedar wrote:
You appear to be only an ape capable of throwing shit.The Kernel wrote:
Tell me, is it hard being that big of a dumbass?
No, it's the usual thing: one writer wants to be more important, so he makes something up. Then it gets caught by the main-stream and we're off.The Kernel wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure that it's all a big liberal conspiracy set up to discredit the President.
Let me get this straight, you are accusing the media of manufacturing evidence without a single shread of proof? Neither Bush, nor any of his conservative lackeys has tried to dispute this document, and you claim that it is fake without a shread of evidence? Calling you a dumbass is being charitable.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:You appear to be only an ape capable of throwing shit.The Kernel wrote:
Tell me, is it hard being that big of a dumbass?
My proof is in my eyes, you idiot. I looked at the document and studied it and concluded that it was inconsistant in appearence with an actual scanned government document.The Kernel wrote:
Let me get this straight, you are accusing the media of manufacturing evidence without a single shread of proof? Neither Bush, nor any of his conservative lackeys has tried to dispute this document, and you claim that it is fake without a shread of evidence? Calling you a dumbass is being charitable.
Actual scanned documents from WWII.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
My proof is in my eyes, you idiot. I looked at the document and studied it and concluded that it was inconsistant in appearence with an actual scanned government document.
Since you are the only one that sees this (none of the mainstream media has disputed this document) it seems to me that you are engaging in Darkstar's style of "I see it, you don't, so I win" debate tactic. When Bush had the pay stubs issued he was questioning the accuracy of this document, not the validity of it. If it was a fake, don't you think maybe the White House would have said something? Or how about the rest of the media?The Duchess of Zeon wrote: My proof is in my eyes, you idiot. I looked at the document and studied it and concluded that it was inconsistant in appearence with an actual scanned government document.
I am accepting nothing, because the evidence is on my side. Perhaps you have not noticed it; here's more:The Kernel wrote:
Since you are the only one that sees this (none of the mainstream media has disputed this document) it seems to me that you are engaging in Darkstar's style of "I see it, you don't, so I win" debate tactic. When Bush had the pay stubs issued he was questioning the accuracy of this document, not the validity of it. If it was a fake, don't you think maybe the White House would have said something? Or how about the rest of the media?
Accept the obvious: you are a fool.
I suppose this is a fake too?The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I am accepting nothing, because the evidence is on my side. Perhaps you have not noticed it; here's more:
Order to Report for Physical Examination from Vietnam Era.
Other than tag added to "personalize," intact; and shows clear quality differences, along with the way the background should be ordered.
I will concede if someone demonstrates that the documents hosted at Tom Paine are reproductions of the original, but I believe I am providing sufficient evidence (and will be continuing to do so), that the copies there, at least, are forgeries. I am making no contention on any other matter, simply analyzing the document in relation to others of its type and declaring it to be a forgery because its appearence is inconsistant with what it is claimed to be.
CNN wrote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House and the head of the Republican Party denounced renewed questions about President Bush's military service record Tuesday, with GOP chief Ed Gillespie calling allegations that Bush skipped National Guard drills "flat wrong."
Gillespie called his Democratic counterpart, Terry McAuliffe, "the John Wilkes Booth of presidential character assassination" for suggesting Bush was absent without leave from his Air National Guard service in 1972 and 1973.
"Terry McAuliffe is flat wrong and slanderous when he says the president was AWOL," Gillespie told CNN.
Questions about whether Bush attended the required drills for the Guard, which he joined at the height of the Vietnam War, first surfaced in a Boston Globe report during the 2000 presidential campaign.
The newspaper cited documents from Bush's military records and interviews with some of his former commanders to conclude that Bush failed to report for required drills between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973.
Sunday, McAuliffe said Democrats would raise the issue if Republicans tried to question the patriotism of their eventual nominee. The current front-runner, Sen. John
Kerry, is a decorated Vietnam veteran.
"I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL," McAuliffe said.
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Bush fulfilled his duties and received an honorable discharge. He called the allegations "outrageous and baseless" Tuesday.
"It was a shame that this issue was brought up four years ago, during the campaign, and it is a shame that it is being brought up again," McClellan said.
During part of the time in question, Bush, who was trained as a fighter pilot, was in Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. The Globe reported that a missed annual flight exam during that time got him suspended from flying for the rest of his term of service.
The New York Times later said a torn and undated document with Bush's Social Security number -- the name was torn off -- proved that Bush had been performing duties between November 1972 and July 1973. But a performance review from his commanding officers for that period stated that Bush had "not been observed" at the Texas base where he was assigned in the previous year.
Both the White House and the Bush campaign had been reluctant to respond to Democratic criticism against the president from the campaign trail, generally calling it partisan rhetoric unworthy of a response.
Aides are responding now partly because the campaign season is heating up, but also because of the subject matter: The president's re-election campaign will be rooted in national security and the president's stewardship as commander-in-chief.
Monday, Kerry declined to comment on the issue.
"I don't what the facts are with respect to the president's service," he told reporters in Tucson, Arizona. "I know issues were raised previously. It's not up to me to talk about them or to question at this point. I just don't even know what the facts are. But I think it's up to the president and the military to answer those questions."
Asked if he thought it an appropriate issue for general election campaign, Kerry said, "I have not made up my mind."
But Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina congressman who is backing the Massachusetts senator, said Democrats failed to press the issue in 2000 and "we're not going to let it ride this time."
"That issue is going to dog him," Clyburn said. "Where was he for a year? I don't know. Nobody else seems to know."
Gillespie last week attacked Kerry's voting record on national security issues but took pains to say Kerry -- a decorated Navy officer in Vietnam who became an anti-war leader after returning home -- had served honorably.
"What I said is demonstrably true. The record and votes that I cited on behalf of Senator Kerry are easy to cite and check," Gillespie said. "President Bush's record of honorable discharge from the National Guard is also just as easy to check. This kind of political discourse is reprehensible."
That's the exact document that I'm claiming is a fake; is there any point in your repeating this?
A Chinese newspaper once took an Onion article seriously. Once something like this gets out there--and it only takes a single source--the possibility of reproduction is endless.Or how about this CNN article?
It's from a different source like you asked for dumbass.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: That's the exact document that I'm claiming is a fake; is there any point in your repeating this?
Too bad we're in America huh?A Chinese newspaper once took an Onion article seriously. Once something like this gets out there--and it only takes a single source--the possibility of reproduction is endless.
I didn't say a different sort, you dumbass, I saidThe Kernel wrote:
It's from a different source like you asked for dumbass.
--which is to say that I believe I have provided evidence that at least puts the nature of the documents at Tom Paine in contention. They are not scans of the originals. I have shown what scans of the originals should look like in general and they do not look like that whatsoever. If someone can provide a source saying that the documents at Tom Paine are reproductions of the original, or can in fact provide those documents in the original format, I will concede that they actually exist.I will concede if someone demonstrates that the documents hosted at Tom Paine are reproductions of the original
Not at all. Remember the New Republic? Or, gasp, the New York Times?
Too bad we're in America huh?
Fax machines didn't exist in 1972. There has to be an original somewhere, which will look something like the documents I linked to. I want to see that original document.Phil Skayhan wrote:Duchess, the document appears to be a copy of a fax. That might explain the poor quality.
I wasn't saying fax machines existed at the time it was originally typed up.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Fax machines didn't exist in 1972. There has to be an original somewhere, which will look something like the documents I linked to. I want to see that original document.
Have a look at these:Phil Skayhan wrote: I wasn't saying fax machines existed at the time it was originally typed up.
But the news organizations (or whoever got this first) had to recieve it somehow. Fax machines are quick and convienant and not as easily traced to an individual.
And I too would like to see the complete original document.
Not at all. Remember the New Republic? Or, gasp, the New York Times?[/quote]The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Too bad we're in America huh?
No, it isn't, fucktard, it just shows that even sometimes in a well-documented culture of lying and "big story" obsession in the media (by both left and right documented one might add), there are still a few cases where it gets caught.The Kernel wrote:
And they got caught and issued retractions. Yet here we are, four years later and nobody has stepped up and said these documents are fake. Quite telling isn't it moron?
May I suggest some Thorazine and a tin foil hat?The Duchess of Zeon wrote: No, it isn't, fucktard, it just shows that even sometimes in a well-documented culture of lying and "big story" obsession in the media (by both left and right documented one might add), there are still a few cases where it gets caught.
Your petulant tactics deserve nothing better than a hearty "fuck you", and as a liberal you should be as much concerned with big-businesses' obsession with money over the truth as with potential government coverups. Strange that I am and you're not. Oh, right, this is a partisan issue so your head has gone out the window.The Kernel wrote:
May I suggest some Thorazine and a tin foil hat?
