Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (72340)	9/21/2004 2:58:42 PM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 793809

In reality, if you were not that interested, you'd see the document and somehow know that something is not right with it. But if you didn't care, then you'd just ignore it and move on. However, once someone mentions microsoft word, it clicks and you can guess in 2 seconds that the memos indeed were microsoft word creations. Another 2 minutes with pbrush and word on a PC will prove conclusively to anyone who really wants to know that it is indeed MS word.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72340)	9/21/2004 6:41:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793809

An expert typically will declare something authentic or say simply that he cannot authenticate it. At what point do experts certify something like this a forgery? Would they not have to have the same level of proof as they would to declare authenticity, such as the original? No, it always is a lower bar to prove something is a forgery than to prove it is authentic. That makes sense if you think about it. When you run down the list of things to check in any document - the paper, the ink, the typeface and/or handwriting, the format, the language, the contents, comparing each point to known authentic documents, you only have to find one significant mismatch to declare it a forgery. To declare it authentic, the document must be an acceptable match on all points of comparison. That's why Mr. Matley correctly said in a previous publication that you could only disauthenticate a document from a photocopy, not authenticate it. Because you don't have all points of comparison available. Here's an example. If somebody hands you a document claiming to be an 18th century original, and you determine it was written on 20th century machinemade wood-pulp paper, instead of 18th century handmade rag-pulp 'laid' paper, then you're done - you don't have to go any further to declare it's a forgery. But if the paper matches, you still have to look at the contents, because a forger might find an old piece of blank paper (eg from an old book) and use it to make a more convincing forgery. In the case of the Killian memos, once Charles Johnson had (aided by Dr. Newcombe) had shown that the memos had been typed in Microsoft Word, they were done. Every other point of comparison, which the memos also flunked because they were preposterously bad forgeries, was icing on the cake. Would the CBS lawyers not insist on weasel language regarding forgery if there is no proof of forgery? Who knows what defense they are trying to craft? But they know, if they know anything, that the memos are indefensible; it's a matter of stupid or gullible CBS wants to look in court.