Reply With QuoteAw, c'mon TD, that's got to be a forgery!
Let's ask Nbadanallah.
But...but....but...
Aw, c'mon TD, that's got to be a forgery!
Let's ask Nbadanallah.
:wacko
D'oh!
The only question which remains at this point is: how much fun are we going to have at the poor bas s' expense?
As my 5 year old was so fond of saying, "All the much!"
You guys still think you proved it was a forgery?
Based on supersrcipt or something?
Holy , the nutjob is still arguing that the memos are real.
Did I ever say they were real? Seriously you guys have your heads so far up your own asses its not funny. I always maintained they could be real, and that discrediting them based upon a technology that was later proven to have existed wasn't right.
Ah yes, you didn't believe that they were real. You didn't argue that they were real...etc...
Poor bas .
Whatever. You guys seriosuly never understand scientific method. Your attempted disproof was based upon poor information. It wasn't accurate. How the else would any intelligent human being react to someone looking at a piece of information. Constantly claiming its the superscripts that disprove it even after multiple instances where proof has been found that the technology existed.
Keep oning kiddo. Oh yes, you are the wise one here. None of us could possibly be capable of realizing how big of a fool you managed to make out of yourself.
Changing the subject again are we?
Do you acknowledge that superscripts, porportional font, and that specific font existed at that time period?
Do you acknowledge that if you type up those memos in Word using the defaults and then run it through a copier about 5 times that it looks awfully like, if not the same as what CBS put out as authentic? Do you acknowledge that Killian's family never knew the man to type or keep personal files or....
Etc. Get a grip. I'm done wasting time on you.
dupe
You didn't answer my question.
And yes two of them (not all of them) look like they could have been written on a word porcessor, but that is coincidental evidence. It could be trivial to the matter of their authenticity.
Now answer my simple question: Did those technologies exist?
ARPAnet existed back then. If someone produced a copy of an email from the early 1970s would that make it real? Get a clue.
Where is your proof that National Guard office had such equipment back then? You have none. It is highly unlikely that those do ents are authentic for a mul ude of reasons.
Its clear they had the technology in 68. I showed you proof of that.
do you need to see it again?
That is not proof.
Try again.
What is it then a pig flying?
That is not proof that Killian used such a machine. Also the superscripts in that doc are different than in the memos.
And again, there is all the other evidence which apparently you are ignorant of at this time, such as the observations of the man's family, the low likelihood that a national guard post would have a typewriter capable of producing a MS Word quality do ent back in 1972, the fact that any expert who is actually willing to go public has stated they think the docs are likely fakes and so on.
Here's a closeup of the superscript from that '68 do ent. Notice how the superscript is oriented to the baseline?
----- That is not proof that Killian used such a machine. Also the superscripts in that doc are different than in the memos.
It would have been highly unusual for two different do ents to have been typed on the exact same machine wouldn't it?
----- And again, there is all the other evidence which apparently you are ignorant of at this time, such as the observations of the man's family,
That isn't proof, its an opinion by family members.
----- the likelihood that a national guard post would have a typewriter capable of producing a MS Word quality do ent back in 1972 and so on.
Again not a proof, just a matter of probability. If your entire arguement is based upon this contingency claim, then it makes the entire argument flawed. Asking what if they had that specific type writer is just as valid as asking what if they didn't?
Here, knock yourself out:
www.flounder.com/bush2.htm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
