Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Guy Fawkes - Hoist with own petard....

All righty then, get a dose of this!
"Bouffard, the Ohio document specialist, said that he had dismissed the Bush documents in an interview with The New York Times because the letters and formatting of the Bush memos did not match any of the 4,000 samples in his database. But Bouffard yesterday said that he had not considered one of the machines whose type is not logged in his database: the IBM Selectric Composer. Once he compared the Bush memos to Selectric Composer samples obtained from Interpol, the international police agency, Bouffard said his view shifted.

In the Times interview, Bouffard had also questioned whether the military would have used the Composer, a large machine. But Bouffard yesterday provided a document indicating that as early as April 1969 -- three years before the dates of the CBS memos -- the Air Force had completed service testing for the Composer, possibly in preparation for purchasing the typewriters.

As for the raised ''th" that appears in the Bush memos -- to refer, for example, to units such as the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron -- Bouffard said that custom characters on the Composer's metal typehead ball were available in the 1970s, and that the military could have ordered such custom balls from IBM."

So, the original source for the whole story has coughed to being WRONG. And further, perhaps you ought to have read this before spamming away? Or perhaps even this? Or yet, this? BTW, the Washington Post story linked to by Insta is not sound. If the fact that CBS's chap only saw copies of the documents is meant to prove anything, we ought to give a tad of consideration to the fact that the experts who claimed they were forged had also only seen copies. I see no mention of this. Oh, but the Post has managed to ask "prominent conservatives" and Laura Bush for their view, giving this as if it were information of any value whatsoever. And our old friend the logical flaw has still not left the building: see the continuing and fallacious use of "we can do it now on computers and therefore it can only have been done in this manner"-type arguments.

If you have better information, why is there none of it on your blog?

No comments:

kostenloser Counter