SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: sylvester80 who wrote (55402)9/11/2004 6:59:43 AM
From: KyrosL  Read Replies (1) of 89467
 
Even without getting into the technical arguments about fonts, kerning, etc., there are two big problems for those that want to believe that the documents are authentic:

1. CBS said that the documents they have are COPIES of the originals. Why would their source give them copies rather than the originals? Where are the originals? The only reasonable explanation is that the source did not want somebody to examine the ink patterns and paper of the originals -- which would easily prove or disprove that they were produced with an early seventies typewriter.

2. CBS' "document" expert is a handwriting expert, not a typewriter or font expert. His certification of the signatures on the documents means nothing, because the documents are copies. It is very easy to splice a scanned genuine signature on a fake document and then produce a copy of the document to cover your tracks.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News