A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

0.41 seconds



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 12th 04, 11:23 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 0.41 seconds

is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir. Lokvist
took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the overall.
The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.

(I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
written before 1973).


Ads
  #2  
Old September 12th 04, 03:43 PM
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Robert Chung" wrote:

is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir. Lokvist
took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the overall.
The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.

(I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
written before 1973).


I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This
conclusively proves your post is a forgery.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #3  
Old September 13th 04, 12:19 AM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Chung" wrote:

is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir.

Lokvist
took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the

overall.
The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.

(I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
written before 1973).


I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This
conclusively proves your post is a forgery.


http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.


  #4  
Old September 13th 04, 09:20 AM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Kunich wrote:

http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.


I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You
appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document
purportedly created at time A, where B A, then the document purportedly
created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's
nuts.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp


  #5  
Old September 13th 04, 09:56 AM
Howard Kveck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
"Tom Kunich" wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Chung" wrote:

is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir.

Lokvist
took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the

overall.
The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.

(I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
written before 1973).


I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This
conclusively proves your post is a forgery.


http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.


I was mocking some of the people who have styled themselves as experts
in the field of document analysis. See, I don't claim to be an expert in
this field, and I haven't made up my mind on whether they are or aren't
forgeries. A couple of points, though. Some sites I've looked at say that
not all documents that are alleged to be from Killian look the same,
type-wise. Who's to say whether or not they were all done on the same
typewriter, or even by the same person (him or one of several secretaries)?
Further, there was a lot of talk about proportional and superscripted types
not existing then. A little searching will show that IBM had machines out
in '41 that did both of those things, and that the US govt. had them in
common useage. As for the fonts matching, well, Times New Roman in Word
better look like Times New Roman on a typewriter. The fonts in computers
and word processors are made to match the mechanically generated versions
of the same name.

It is interesting to me that the White House didn't and doesn't dispute
any of what the documents said. They aren't pushing back on this at all. I
doubt that's because they knew that the blogoshpere would sort it out for
'em. Maybe they want them to go away?

The important part of all this is simple: did GWB fulfill his obligation
in the TNG? It does not appear to be so. Example:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm

As for me voting for Chirac, I don't understand. Chirac is French and...
Ooooooooooohhhhhhh, now I get it! You called Kerry Chirac, cuz he's so, you
know, French. Damn, that is *so* cute.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
  #6  
Old September 13th 04, 04:47 PM
RonSonic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:20:35 +0200, "Robert Chung" wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:

http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdoc...studysmall.jpg

If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.


I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You
appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document
purportedly created at time A, where B A, then the document purportedly
created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's
nuts.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp


Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type memoranda.
Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk.

Ron
  #7  
Old September 13th 04, 05:53 PM
gwhite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Howard Kveck wrote:


See, I don't claim to be an expert in
this field,...


"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein


Einstein was not an expert in the field of governance. In appeals to authority,
it is beneficial to actually choose an authority. Even then...
  #8  
Old September 13th 04, 09:44 PM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RonSonic wrote:

Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type
memoranda. Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on
every desk.


So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a
document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine,
then the document is proved to be a forgery.

BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the
memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...09bushdocs.pdf

How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?


  #9  
Old September 13th 04, 10:13 PM
Curtis L. Russell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:


So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a
document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine,
then the document is proved to be a forgery.

BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the
memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...09bushdocs.pdf

How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?


Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
non-issue. You create it, forge the signature and then run it through
a copier to disguise the age. The longest part of the process is
forging a reasonable signature.

How long to create something pretty much the same? A few minutes.
Longer to forge a signature. Not that I ever saw a 'CYA' memo in my
seven years in the military, not labeled as such. Seems pretty dumb
ass to me.

The interesting part of this entire event is how many
middle-of-the-road to liberal media types are taking CBS to task on
the original vetting and their subsequent defense. Its ABC that was
the harshest commentator as of this morning - not the favorite
whipping boy of the left, Fox.

And the direction of this is even more interested when you look at
Terry Mcauliffe's remarks. After making the Republicans responsible
for anything ever released about Kerry, he now declares the Bush
documents were probably planted by Republicans as well. While this may
sit well with the core Democrat voters, I'm guessing that it doesn't
sit nearly as well with the swing voters.

And it seems to pretty much concede that the documents were probably
forgeries.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
  #10  
Old September 13th 04, 11:46 PM
Robert Chung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung"
wrote:


BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create
the memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...09bushdocs.pdf

How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?


Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
non-issue. [...] How long to create something pretty much the same?
A few minutes.


The claim on LGF was that the memos could be re-created using MS Word
defaults, in a few minutes. Try it with the memo dated "04 May 1972."


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
90 F*CKING SECONDS James Calivar General 69 August 2nd 04 11:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.