Rather biased, methinks...

[alexpgp]

There is a most illuminating summary of the forged CBS documents at FlounderCraft, Ltd.. The information at the link is clear and understandable, and reduces to the following conclusion:

So we have the following two hypotheses contending for describing the memos

• Attempts to recreate the memos using Microsoft Word and Times New Roman produce images so close that even taking into account the fact that the image we were able to download from the CBS site has been copied, scanned, downloaded, and reprinted, the errors between the "authentic" document and a file created by anyone using Microsoft word are virtually indistinguishable.
  


• The font existed in 1972; there were technologies in 1972 that could, with elaborate effort, reproduce these memos, and these technologies and the skills to use them were used by someone who, by testimony of his own family, never typed anything, in an office that for all its other documents appears to have used ordinary monospaced typewriters, and therefore this unlikely juxtaposition of technologies and location coincided just long enough to produce these four memos on 04-May-1972, 18-May-1972, 01-August-1972, and 18-August-1973.

Which one do you think is true? Which one would a 13th-century philosopher think made sense? How many totally unlikely other juxtapositions are expected to be true? How could anyone believe these memos are other than incompetent forgeries?

With this kind of argumentation, it seems that finding actual factual errors in the forgeries (such as the reference to Col. Walter Staudt's exerting pressure to "sugar coat" the facts in the fake Killian memo dated 18 Aug 73, when by that date Staudt had been out of the military for over a year [link]) really just gilds the lily.

I haven't voted for a Democrat or a Republican in a national presidential election in 20 years. That may end this election cycle.

Cheers...