> NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
>> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
>> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
>> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
>> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
>>
>> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
>> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
>> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
>>
>> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
>> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
>> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
>> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
>> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
>> reut/index.html
>>

In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the easy
route, and ask others to disprove it.





Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

In article >,
(Ron) wrote:

> > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> >>
> >> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> >> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> >> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> >>
> >> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> >> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> >> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> >> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> >> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> >>
> >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> >> reut/index.html
> >>
>
> In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the easy
> route, and ask others to disprove it.

With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.

The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.


Hmmmmm


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Ron) wrote:
>
> > > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> > >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> > >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> > >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> > >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> > >>
> > >> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> > >> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> > >> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> > >>
> > >> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> > >> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> > >> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> > >> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> > >> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> > >> reut/index.html
> > >>
> >
> > In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the
easy
> > route, and ask others to disprove it.
>
> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
>
> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
> we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.

I guess this guy's word does not count, huh?

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm

Brooks

>
>
> Hmmmmm
>
>
> --Mike

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (Ron) wrote:
> >
> > > > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> > > >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> > > >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> > > >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> > > >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> > > >>
> > > >> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> > > >> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> > > >> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> > > >>
> > > >> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> > > >> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> > > >> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> > > >> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> > > >> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> > > >> reut/index.html
> > > >>
> > >
> > > In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the
> easy
> > > route, and ask others to disprove it.
> >
> > With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> > they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
> >
> > The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
> > we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
>
> I guess this guy's word does not count, huh?
>
> www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm

Ooops. Bad link. Try:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm

Mr. Trudeau apparently does not consider Mr. Calhoun a "witness", huh?

Brooks

>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> > Hmmmmm
> >
> >
> > --Mike
>
>

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > (Ron) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> > > > >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> > > > >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> > > > >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> > > > >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> > > > >> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> > > > >> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> > > > >> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> > > > >> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> > > > >> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> > > > >> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> > > > >> reut/index.html
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the
> > easy
> > > > route, and ask others to disprove it.
> > >
> > > With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> > > they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
> > >
> > > The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
> > > we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
> >
> > I guess this guy's word does not count, huh?
> >
> > www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm
>
> Ooops. Bad link. Try:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm
>
> Mr. Trudeau apparently does not consider Mr. Calhoun a "witness", huh?


I'm not certain, but a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush
in the squadron is probably not going to persuade many...unless he has
pictures.



--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who
> can prove they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
>
> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
> we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
>

How do you know there were no takers? The quoted material said there were
no credible witnesses, but did not say what constituted a credible witness.

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > (Ron) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> > > > > >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George
W.
> > > > > >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam
War
> > > > > >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> > > > > >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> > > > > >> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if
there
> > > > > >> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find
a
> > > > > >> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> > > > > >> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> > > > > >> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> > > > > >> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> > > > > >> reut/index.html
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take
the
> > > easy
> > > > > route, and ask others to disprove it.
> > > >
> > > > With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can
prove
> > > > they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
> > > >
> > > > The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet
here
> > > > we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
> > >
> > > I guess this guy's word does not count, huh?
> > >
> > > www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm
> >
> > Ooops. Bad link. Try:
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm
> >
> > Mr. Trudeau apparently does not consider Mr. Calhoun a "witness", huh?
>
>
> I'm not certain, but a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush
> in the squadron is probably not going to persuade many...unless he has
> pictures.

So now you are back to saying that Mr. trudeau was not being true to his
word when he asked for a *witness* to come forward?

Got any pictures of Kerry performing any reserve duty under *his*
obligation?

Brooks
>
>
>
> --Mike

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess this guy's word does not count, huh?
>

Of course not. His name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to
Bush, he's obviously not a credible witness.

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mr. Trudeau apparently does not consider Mr. Calhoun a "witness", huh?
>

Certainly not a "credible witness", which I believe was the stated
requirement. Obviously, anyone that states Bush served as required would be
sympathetic to the Bush campaign and therefore not a credible witness.

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
>
> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
> we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.

Only if you assume that 50+ year old ex-military types from Alabama are
the types who would read "Doonesbury."

The comics also made sure to specify that they need *proof* that someone
served with Bush, not just someone's word for it. So unless someone can
dig up a 30 year old photo of them with some guy they only saw on a few
weekends, they're out of luck.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not certain, but a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush
> in the squadron is probably not going to persuade many...unless he has
> pictures.
>

No, a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush in the squadron is not
going to persuade anyone that has decided Bush wasn't there. As for
pictures, well, obviously any pictures showing Bush serving as required are
recently manufactured computer images.

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> So now you are back to saying that Mr. trudeau was not being true to his
> word when he asked for a *witness* to come forward?
>

Now, now, now. Mr. Trudeau required a "CREDIBLE witness". Clearly, since
Bush was AWOL anyone that states Bush served as required is not credible.


>
> Got any pictures of Kerry performing any reserve duty under *his*
> obligation?
>

Now, now, now. John Kerry is a Democrat so no proof is required.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> The comics also made sure to specify that they need *proof*
> that someone served with Bush, not just someone's word for it.
> So unless someone can dig up a 30 year old photo of them with
> some guy they only saw on a few weekends, they're out of luck.
>

If such a photo was found it would be declared a fabrication. This whole
thing is set up to ensure there will be no winner. Anyone who does come
forward will simply be deemed not credible.

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> > With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> > they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
> >
> > The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
> > we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
>
> Only if you assume that 50+ year old ex-military types from Alabama are
> the types who would read "Doonesbury."

Well its been covered in both the local and national media (print and
broadcast). I imagine more than one person who served in the unit Mr.
Bush is said to have drilled with can vouch for him convincingly.

>
> The comics also made sure to specify that they need *proof* that someone
> served with Bush, not just someone's word for it. So unless someone can
> dig up a 30 year old photo of them with some guy they only saw on a few
> weekends, they're out of luck.


That or maybe people who drilled with him.


--Mike

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > I'm not certain, but a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush
> > in the squadron is probably not going to persuade many...unless he has
> > pictures.
> >
>
> No, a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush in the squadron is not
> going to persuade anyone that has decided Bush wasn't there. As for
> pictures, well, obviously any pictures showing Bush serving as required are
> recently manufactured computer images.


So then you've seen pictures of Mr. Bush serving in AL? Where might
these pictures be? Come up with them, and $10K could be yours.

Worried about authenticity issues? Most digital photo pros can identify
a doctored image. Heck, even the design interns at the magazines I have
worked at can tell. Just put up the photos or any other evidence, and
you get the prize.



Easy money...eh?



--Mike

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

> In article >,
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > The comics also made sure to specify that they need *proof* that someone
> > served with Bush, not just someone's word for it. So unless someone can
> > dig up a 30 year old photo of them with some guy they only saw on a few
> > weekends, they're out of luck.
>
> That or maybe people who drilled with him.

That's not proof, that's testimony. If they were only looking for
testimony, they already have that.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Ron) wrote:
>
> > > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> > >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> > >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> > >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> > >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> > >>
> > >> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> > >> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> > >> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> > >>
> > >> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> > >> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> > >> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> > >> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> > >> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> > >>
> > >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> > >> reut/index.html
> > >>
> >
> > In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the
easy
> > route, and ask others to disprove it.
>
> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.

Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?

> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....

Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
on the editorial pages. Hell, he was so ****ed that Reagan
was President he quit drawing his cartoon and ran off to
France until the term was up.

>yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.

How many people are going to have movies (stills are
too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
can be dated and placed sufficiently? How about any other
member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
somebody happens to have some local news film shot
on the base where the individual shows up in the background.

>Hmmmmm

Hmmmm yourself.

I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.

Oh yea, it also says: "If you personally witnessed George W. Bush
reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between
the months of May and November of 1972 we want to hear about it."
But they really don't care since they follow that up a little later with:
"Q: What if I saw Bush, but I can't prove it? Can I get some of the money?
A: No, but if your story's entertaining enough, you may qualify for our
consolation prize, an original Doonesbury strip personally signed by a
top studio intern."

>The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
>we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.

This is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps those "in the know" are uninformed
about Mr. Trudeau's little scheme, or simply don't want to play his game.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

>The comics also made sure to specify that they need *proof* that someone
>served with Bush, not just someone's word for it. So unless someone can
>dig up a 30 year old photo of them with some guy they only saw on a few
>weekends, they're out of luck.

I was on active duty, every day in uniform, at Coligny Caserne in
Orleans, france, for 18 months. If a comic strip offered $10,000 for
photographic proof from someone who knew me there, I am sure that no
one would come forward. Even I don't have any photographs of me there.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> So then you've seen pictures of Mr. Bush serving in AL?
>

Nope.


>
> Easy money...eh?
>

Easy money if you just have to satisfy on objective judge. Hard money if
you have to satisfy Trudeau.

John Keeney wrote:
> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> (Ron) wrote:
>>
>>>> NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
>>>>> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
>>>>> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
>>>>> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
>>>>> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
>>>>>
>>>>> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
>>>>> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
>>>>> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
>>>>>
>>>>> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
>>>>> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
>>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
>>>>> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
>>>>> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
>>>>> reut/index.html
>>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the easy
>>> route, and ask others to disprove it.
>>
>> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
>> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
>
> Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
> Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?
>
>> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....
>
> Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
> The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
> on the editorial pages. Hell, he was so ****ed that Reagan
> was President he quit drawing his cartoon and ran off to
> France until the term was up.
>
>> yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
>
> How many people are going to have movies (stills are
> too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
> can be dated and placed sufficiently? How about any other
> member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
> somebody happens to have some local news film shot
> on the base where the individual shows up in the background.
>
>> Hmmmmm
>
> Hmmmm yourself.
>
> I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
> http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
> Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
> fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
> money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
> instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
> So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.
>
> Oh yea, it also says: "If you personally witnessed George W. Bush
> reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between
> the months of May and November of 1972 we want to hear about it."
> But they really don't care since they follow that up a little later with:
> "Q: What if I saw Bush, but I can't prove it? Can I get some of the money?
> A: No, but if your story's entertaining enough, you may qualify for our
> consolation prize, an original Doonesbury strip personally signed by a
> top studio intern."

RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!

> Worried about authenticity issues? Most digital photo pros can identify
> a doctored image. Heck, even the design interns at the magazines I have
> worked at can tell. Just put up the photos or any other evidence, and
> you get the prize.

Are you even listening to yourself? Is this the depths of stupidity to
which Bush haters have stooped? Seriously, I spent the last few years
hoping against hope for some quality opposition to Bush because I believe we
need a change, but this stuff makes the Clinton-Lewinsky circus look like
British theatre by comparison - and yet so many people can't seem to see how
ridiculous they look cruising down mainstreet on this float.

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the
easy
> > route, and ask others to disprove it.
>
> Actually, that is a quite normal procedure in exact science -- It is
> almost impossible to prove a theory, but as long as it describes
> the available evidence within experimental accuracy, and nobody
> has evidence to the contrary, it is accepted. Nothing irrational
> about that.

A theory must comply with the scientific method by being demonstrable and
repeatable.

An assertion has no need for any basis.

> Of course, one day Einstein was asked how he would have reacted
> if an astronomical measurement, set up to prove the general theory
> of relativity, had indicated otherwise. He answered "I would have
> been very sorry for the gentleman. The theory is right."

Given that astronomical experiments had already proven the theory to be
true, how else was Einstein to feel?

Michael Wise > wrote in message news:<no->
> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.

About 10 years ago or so, there was a guy named Ralph Winston on --
soc.history I think it was -- who offered $10,000 to anyone who could
prove the holocaust happened to him.

No one ever collected. Why? Not because there isn't proof --
mountains and mountains of it -- but simply because none of it was
good enough to persuade his already made-up mind.

I don't know if this is the game Mr. Tredeau is playing, but if it is
it's a sucker's game. Even the White House releasing the President's
personal records isn't, apparently good enough for him. There is none
so blind as those who will not see.

And it's really below Mr. Tredeau (sp?). I wish he'd get off his
political hobbyhorse and actually write something funny once in
awhile.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> John Keeney wrote:
> > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> (Ron) wrote:
> >>
> >>>> NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> >>>>> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> >>>>> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> >>>>> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> >>>>> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> >>>>> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> >>>>> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> >>>>> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> >>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> >>>>> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> >>>>> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> >>>>> reut/index.html
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the
easy
> >>> route, and ask others to disprove it.
> >>
> >> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can
prove
> >> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
> >
> > Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
> > Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?
> >
> >> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....
> >
> > Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
> > The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
> > on the editorial pages. Hell, he was so ****ed that Reagan
> > was President he quit drawing his cartoon and ran off to
> > France until the term was up.
> >
> >> yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
> >
> > How many people are going to have movies (stills are
> > too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
> > can be dated and placed sufficiently? How about any other
> > member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
> > somebody happens to have some local news film shot
> > on the base where the individual shows up in the background.
> >
> >> Hmmmmm
> >
> > Hmmmm yourself.
> >
> > I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
> > http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
> > Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
> > fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
> > money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
> > instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
> > So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.
> >
> > Oh yea, it also says: "If you personally witnessed George W. Bush
> > reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between
> > the months of May and November of 1972 we want to hear about it."
> > But they really don't care since they follow that up a little later
with:
> > "Q: What if I saw Bush, but I can't prove it? Can I get some of the
money?
> > A: No, but if your story's entertaining enough, you may qualify for our
> > consolation prize, an original Doonesbury strip personally signed by a
> > top studio intern."
>
> RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!

DNC Playbook: Make baseless accusations. When proof is presented, change
the conditions of the proof.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> >>
It all depends on how you define "credible". It is usually
defined as 'something I am willing to believe.' There
are millions of Creationists who say that there is
no 'credible' evidence of evolution.

Ragnar wrote:
>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>> ...

>> RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!

> DNC Playbook: Make baseless accusations. When proof is presented, change
> the conditions of the proof.

You guys never get anything right. My copy of the Playbook says: "Don't make
baseless accusations. Present proof and then watch their faces turn red as they
try to think of how to change the subject!"

It works every time. I say something about going after the messenger, and you
immediately start talking about baseless accusations. They're your words, so I
rest my case on them. (^-^)))

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> John Keeney wrote:
> > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article >,
> >> (Ron) wrote:
> >>
> >>>> NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> >>>>> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> >>>>> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> >>>>> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> >>>>> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> >>>>> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> >>>>> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> >>>>> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> >>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> >>>>> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> >>>>> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> >>>>> reut/index.html
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the
easy
> >>> route, and ask others to disprove it.
> >>
> >> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can
prove
> >> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
> >
> > Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
> > Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?
> >
> >> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....
> >
> > Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
> > The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
> > on the editorial pages. Hell, he was so ****ed that Reagan
> > was President he quit drawing his cartoon and ran off to
> > France until the term was up.
> >
> >> yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
> >
> > How many people are going to have movies (stills are
> > too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
> > can be dated and placed sufficiently? How about any other
> > member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
> > somebody happens to have some local news film shot
> > on the base where the individual shows up in the background.
> >
> >> Hmmmmm
> >
> > Hmmmm yourself.
> >
> > I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
> > http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
> > Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
> > fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
> > money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
> > instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
> > So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.
> >
> > Oh yea, it also says: "If you personally witnessed George W. Bush
> > reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between
> > the months of May and November of 1972 we want to hear about it."
> > But they really don't care since they follow that up a little later
with:
> > "Q: What if I saw Bush, but I can't prove it? Can I get some of the
money?
> > A: No, but if your story's entertaining enough, you may qualify for our
> > consolation prize, an original Doonesbury strip personally signed by a
> > top studio intern."
>
> RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!

George, that's one of the dumbest things you've ever said here.
There was no attack on Wise. I was pointing out the assumptions
he was working on were false: that someone could claim $10,000
and that it could be easily done if Bush showed up at the Alabama
ANG.
There was no attack on Trudeau, unless calling some one a
democrat is an attack. OK, calling someone a democrat is like
saying they're a retard, but some people are ya' know.

Of 29 lines of text response from me:
2 lines addressed the wide spread knowledge of the award,
5 lines addressed Trudeau's likely impartiality to judge,
6 lines examined the likely hood of photographic evidence,
1 line was in imitation of the past message at the "discovery"
that was to follow in the rest of the message,
2 line correctly located the "contest",
5 lines were used to point out the award doesn't exist
and
the final 8 lines showed that eye witness testimony would
be insufficient. Insufficient, just as was assumed in discussing
Trudeau's judgment in this case.

In balance, of 29 lines you might make some case for
5 lines addressing Trudeau's judgment being an "attack".
14 (5+6) lines directly addressed the difficulty in passing
Trudeau's test.
And 5 line point out there is no actual reward for jumping
through Trudeau's hoops.
At even at the irrational biased worse, only 18% of the
message was "attack" as opposed to 48% being addressed
to why evidence was unlikely to exist.

So, it appears the "RNC play book" calls for the attack to
be out weighed by the substance by at least 2.5 times.


Your message?
One line, 100% dismissal of what you don't want to see.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Ragnar wrote:
> >> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >> RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!
>
> > DNC Playbook: Make baseless accusations. When proof is presented,
change
> > the conditions of the proof.
>
> You guys never get anything right. My copy of the Playbook says: "Don't
make
> baseless accusations. Present proof and then watch their faces turn red
as they
> try to think of how to change the subject!"
>
> It works every time. I say something about going after the messenger, and
you
> immediately start talking about baseless accusations. They're your words,
so I
> rest my case on them. (^-^)))

Awww, thats so cute. Look how the Demorat attempts to make a joke.

John Keeney wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Keeney wrote:
>>> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> (Ron) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
>>>>>>> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
>>>>>>> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
>>>>>>> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
>>>>>>> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
>>>>>>> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
>>>>>>> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
>>>>>>> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
>>>>>>> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
>>>>>>> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
>>>>>>> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
>>>>>>> reut/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the easy
>>>>> route, and ask others to disprove it.
>>>>
>>>> With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
>>>> they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
>>>
>>> Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
>>> Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?
>>>
>>>> The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....
>>>
>>> Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
>>> The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
>>> on the editorial pages. Hell, he was so ****ed that Reagan
>>> was President he quit drawing his cartoon and ran off to
>>> France until the term was up.
>>>
>>>> yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
>>>
>>> How many people are going to have movies (stills are
>>> too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
>>> can be dated and placed sufficiently? How about any other
>>> member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
>>> somebody happens to have some local news film shot
>>> on the base where the individual shows up in the background.
>>>
>>>> Hmmmmm
>>>
>>> Hmmmm yourself.
>>>
>>> I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
>>> http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
>>> Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
>>> fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
>>> money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
>>> instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
>>> So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.
>>>
>>> Oh yea, it also says: "If you personally witnessed George W. Bush
>>> reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between
>>> the months of May and November of 1972 we want to hear about it."
>>> But they really don't care since they follow that up a little later with:
>>> "Q: What if I saw Bush, but I can't prove it? Can I get some of the money?
>>> A: No, but if your story's entertaining enough, you may qualify for our
>>> consolation prize, an original Doonesbury strip personally signed by a
>>> top studio intern."
>>
>> RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!
>
> George, that's one of the dumbest things you've ever said here.
> There was no attack on Wise. I was pointing out the assumptions
> he was working on were false: that someone could claim $10,000
> and that it could be easily done if Bush showed up at the Alabama
> ANG.
> There was no attack on Trudeau, unless calling some one a
> democrat is an attack. OK, calling someone a democrat is like
> saying they're a retard, but some people are ya' know.
>
> Of 29 lines of text response from me:
> 2 lines addressed the wide spread knowledge of the award,
> 5 lines addressed Trudeau's likely impartiality to judge,
> 6 lines examined the likely hood of photographic evidence,
> 1 line was in imitation of the past message at the "discovery"
> that was to follow in the rest of the message,
> 2 line correctly located the "contest",
> 5 lines were used to point out the award doesn't exist
> and
> the final 8 lines showed that eye witness testimony would
> be insufficient. Insufficient, just as was assumed in discussing
> Trudeau's judgment in this case.
>
> In balance, of 29 lines you might make some case for
> 5 lines addressing Trudeau's judgment being an "attack".
> 14 (5+6) lines directly addressed the difficulty in passing
> Trudeau's test.
> And 5 line point out there is no actual reward for jumping
> through Trudeau's hoops.
> At even at the irrational biased worse, only 18% of the
> message was "attack" as opposed to 48% being addressed
> to why evidence was unlikely to exist.
>
> So, it appears the "RNC play book" calls for the attack to
> be out weighed by the substance by at least 2.5 times.

My one line comment generates 28 lines of response and/or disclaimer from you,
and you said I was stupid! I think I'll just rest my case while I'm ahead.

George Z.
>
>
> Your message?
> One line, 100% dismissal of what you don't want to see.

Ragnar wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ragnar wrote:
>>>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>
>>>> RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!
>>
>>> DNC Playbook: Make baseless accusations. When proof is presented, change
>>> the conditions of the proof.
>>
>> You guys never get anything right. My copy of the Playbook says: "Don't
>> make baseless accusations. Present proof and then watch their faces turn
>> red as they try to think of how to change the subject!"
>>
>> It works every time. I say something about going after the messenger, and
>> you immediately start talking about baseless accusations. They're your
>> words, so I rest my case on them. (^-^)))
>
> Awww, thats so cute. Look how the Demorat attempts to make a joke.

Judging from how you spell Democrat, I guess you too learned something in cutesy
school. You're sooooo clever.....I don't know how you stand yourself. Demorat
indeed.

George Z.

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> >The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
> >we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
>
> This is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps those "in the know" are uninformed
> about Mr. Trudeau's little scheme, or simply don't want to play his game.


Or perhaps don't read a paper or watch the news.


--Mike

In article >,
"John Keeney" > wrote:

> > > > NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
> > > >> "Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
> > > >> Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
> > > >> has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
> > > >> evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.
> > > >>
> > > >> With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
> > > >> service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
> > > >> was one, said Garry Trudeau.
> > > >>
> > > >> "You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
> > > >> witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
> > > >> beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
> > > >> irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
> > > >> would almost certainly have surfaced by now."
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/elec04.bush.doonesbury
> > > >> reut/index.html


> > With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
> > they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.
>
> Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
> Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?

Who can say, but if they don't know what a newspaper is or even watch
the news as seems to be the case with some of the more opinionated
poltical wonks around here, it may be more than a few.
>
> > The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....
>
> Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
> The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
> on the editorial pages.


Who cares what his party is. Let's just see what kind of evidence turns
up; we're all grown up enough to judge it on it merits.


> >yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.
>
> How many people are going to have movies (stills are
> too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
> can be dated and placed sufficiently?


Faked stills are easy to spot. As I said earlier, even the design dept.
interns at the magazines I've worked at can spot a fake.


> How about any other
> member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
> somebody happens to have some local news film shot
> on the base where the individual shows up in the background.

Let's just see what gets submitted as evidence and wait to pass
judgement on it until that time.

> >Hmmmmm
>
> Hmmmm yourself.

That's right.

>
> I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
> http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
> Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
> fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
> money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
> instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
> So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.


A $10k contribution to the organization who has spent its entire
existance trying to improve the morale of those in uniform is not reward
enough?


--Mike

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > So then you've seen pictures of Mr. Bush serving in AL?
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>
> >
> > Easy money...eh?
> >
>
> Easy money if you just have to satisfy on objective judge. Hard money if
> you have to satisfy Trudeau.


Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
something even approaching conclusive evidence? An objective judge might
be swayed is two people came forward with similar testimony...but one?


--Mike

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > I'm not certain, but a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush
> > in the squadron is probably not going to persuade many...unless he has
> > pictures.
> >
>
> No, a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush in the squadron is not
> going to persuade anyone that has decided Bush wasn't there. As for
> pictures, well, obviously any pictures showing Bush serving as required are
> recently manufactured computer images.


Manufactured images are easy for the trained eye to spot.

--Mike

In article <E4I0c.6541$Pc.6396@okepread02>, "t_mark" >
wrote:

> > Worried about authenticity issues? Most digital photo pros can identify
> > a doctored image. Heck, even the design interns at the magazines I have
> > worked at can tell. Just put up the photos or any other evidence, and
> > you get the prize.
>
> Are you even listening to yourself? Is this the depths of stupidity to
> which Bush haters have stooped?


You're claiming that the factual statement that trained eyes can spot a
doctored photo is not only stupid...but indicative of somebody hating
anybody?

Is English your first language?



> Seriously, I spent the last few years
> hoping against hope for some quality opposition to Bush because I believe we
> need a change,


You had that opportunity four years ago in McCain...although the
sentiment has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Manufactured images are easy for the trained eye to spot.
>

So what? That doesn't mean a genuine image won't be declared a fake.

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Manufactured images are easy for the trained eye to spot.
> >
>
> So what? That doesn't mean a genuine image won't be declared a fake.


Put up the image for lay as well as professional examination...and let
the people make the conclusion.

--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Put up the image for lay as well as professional examination...and let
> the people make the conclusion.
>

Sounds good to me, but if Trudeau was that reasonable the reward would have
already been paid.

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Put up the image for lay as well as professional examination...and let
> > the people make the conclusion.
> >
>
> Sounds good to me, but if Trudeau was that reasonable the reward would have
> already been paid.


And you know this because you've seen and evaluated any evidence
provided to him?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you know this because you've seen and evaluated any evidence
> provided to him?
>

I know this because I read the statements of a member of the AANG who served
with Bush.

In article .net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > And you know this because you've seen and evaluated any evidence
> > provided to him?
> >
>
> I know this because I read the statements of a member of the AANG who served
> with Bush.


If you read a statement of a person claiming to be Elvis, would you
accept it as truth...simply because it was a written statement?



--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you read a statement of a person claiming to be Elvis, would you
> accept it as truth...simply because it was a written statement?
>

No, I wouldn't. There is good reason to doubt a person claiming to be
Elvis. Elvis is dead. But there is no good reason to doubt the statement
of a person who served in the AANG unit that Bush was assigned to while he
was assigned to it.

>> In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the easy
>> route, and ask others to disprove it.
>
>Actually, that is a quite normal procedure in exact science -- It is
>almost impossible to prove a theory, but as long as it describes
>the available evidence within experimental accuracy, and nobody
>has evidence to the contrary, it is accepted. Nothing irrational
>about that.

However this is not science. It is making accusations about someone else, and
when one does not have the evidence to support ones theory, then just demand
everyone prove its wrong. I still think it is important for one to support
and have evidence for what one says about others.

I could ask for photographic evidence to prove that you did not beat up kids on
June 11 last year. And then if no one can provide photos showing you did not
beat any kids that day, I can say thats proves that you did.

Yes, it is ludicrous and silly, but I think it is similar.

Even in science, you still try to find some evidence to support your theories
before submitting them for peer review.

I have known people who were not big fans of Bush, but said that missing
national guard duty days due to career obligations and making them up
afterwards was not unusual at all.




Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>Demorat indeed.

Thank you for admitting that.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> My one line comment generates 28 lines of response and/or disclaimer from
you,
> and you said I was stupid! I think I'll just rest my case while I'm
ahead.

Ah, you were just trolling and your stupidity was intentional.
Never mind then.

John Keeney wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>> My one line comment generates 28 lines of response and/or disclaimer from
>> you, and you said I was stupid! I think I'll just rest my case while I'm
>> ahead.
>
> Ah, you were just trolling and your stupidity was intentional.
> Never mind then.

OK. However, if I was trolling, you were the guppy who bit, so which one of us
was the stupid one? You don't have to bother answering.....we all already know
the answer. (^-^)))

George Z.

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
> something even approaching conclusive evidence?
>

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?


>
> An objective judge might
> be swayed is two people came forward with similar testimony...but one?
>

Why not one? Why would one witness that was in a position to know with
nothing to gain by lying not be believed? How many credible witnesses did
Trudeau require in his initial challenge?

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> You guys never get anything right. My copy of the Playbook says: "Don't
make
> baseless accusations. Present proof and then watch their faces turn red
as they
> try to think of how to change the subject!"
>

But you frequently make baseless accusations and rarely present proof.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You guys never get anything right. My copy of the Playbook says: "Don't
> make
> > baseless accusations. Present proof and then watch their faces turn red
> as they
> > try to think of how to change the subject!"
> >
>
> But you frequently make baseless accusations and rarely present proof.

If you say so.
>
>

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
> > something even approaching conclusive evidence?
>
> To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?

Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.
>

Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.
> >
>
> Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?


The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case. One person can
relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally or otherwise). It's
when you get more than one person to corraborate the testimony that it
starts to shape as something credible. In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody
else from his former AL unit stepped forward to confirm the "sighting"?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case.
>

All cases are the same? I think there's a significant difference between a
case where a witness is asked to identify a person they've never seen before
and a case where there asked to plave a coworker at their workplace.


>
> One person can relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally
> or otherwise).
>

Where is there room for error in this case? What reason would this witness
have to lie?


>
> It's
> when you get more than one person to corraborate the testimony that it
> starts to shape as something credible. In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody
> else from his former AL unit stepped forward to confirm the "sighting"?
>

How many are needed in this case?

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:


> > One person can relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally
> > or otherwise).
> >
>
> Where is there room for error in this case?


Incorrectly remembering what he saw (dates, people, milieus, etc.).

> What reason would this witness have to lie?


Partisanship?


> > It's
> > when you get more than one person to corraborate the testimony that it
> > starts to shape as something credible. In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody
> > else from his former AL unit stepped forward to confirm the "sighting"?
> >
>
> How many are needed in this case?


How about we start with at least two people and take it from there?


--Mike

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Incorrectly remembering what he saw (dates, people, milieus, etc.).
>

He doesn't have to remember specific dates, just place him at Dannelly
within the proper time period.


>
> Partisanship?
>

I think you've nailed it. Anybody that does place him at Dannelly is
obviously a partisan and thus not a credible witness.


>
> How about we start with at least two people and take it from there?
>

Two partisans are no more credible than one.

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:


> > Incorrectly remembering what he saw (dates, people, milieus, etc.).
> >
>
> He doesn't have to remember specific dates, just place him at Dannelly
> within the proper time period.


Nobody said anything about specifc dates. I think year and approximate
month (or even season) would suffice. That coupled with the instances in
which the person claims to have seen Mr. Bush.

Tell me, why has nobody else in the unit come forward. I sure as well
won't ever forget those I served with both on active duty and active
reserves. Surely, more than one person can step forward.


> > Partisanship?
> >
>
> I think you've nailed it.


I probably have.


> Anybody that does place him at Dannelly is
> obviously a partisan and thus not a credible witness.


Your conclusion; certainly not mine



> > How about we start with at least two people and take it from there?
> >
>
> Two partisans are no more credible than one.


Nobody is accusing the person claiming to have seen Mr. Bush multiple
times of partnership. However, partisanship should be considered...when
it's only one person coming forward (months after the fact). Even if two
people wanted to play such games, their two testimonies can be played
side by side for examination and it probably wouldn't be too hard to
then credit or discredit the entire premise.



--Mike

--Mike

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.
>
> Why wouldn't it be reliable in this case?

Well, from the point of view of the "Doonesbury" folks, it's because
someone could have paid off the witness, or the witness could just plain
be wrong about 30 year old memories. For a counterexample, the
different points of view about Kerry's Vietnam record (ranging from hero
to nearly a war criminal).

Note also the surprising number of guys who have been released from
prison after physical (DNA) testing showed that they could _not_ have
been the person who committed that crime, after a witness' testimony put
them away.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

> In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody else from his former AL unit stepped
> forward to confirm the "sighting"?

A few so far, and there have been minor discrepancies in their stories,
which has been a major point of contention on his service record.

Hell, I'd have trouble remembering a lot of the short-term guys I served
with, and that was only *20* years ago.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The same reason it isn't very reliable in any case.
>
> All cases are the same?

No, some are worse than others. It's *impossible* to get 100% reliable
witnesses.

> I think there's a significant difference between a case where a
> witness is asked to identify a person they've never seen before and a
> case where there asked to plave a coworker at their workplace.

But that's for short-term situations. Can you remember everyone you
went to school with in high school? Can you even remember all of your
*teachers*?

Now, put yourself in the place of some old guy who was the rankingh
officer at some NG base 30 years back, and consider how hard it would be
to remember with any certainty if some young guy went through your unit
for a few days over a couple of months.

> > One person can relate his testimony inaccurately (intentionally
> > or otherwise).
>
> Where is there room for error in this case? What reason would this witness
> have to lie?

Political, monetary, or notoriety. For example.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
> > > something even approaching conclusive evidence?
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?
>
> Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.

When I've sat jury duty the instructions were to take all testimony
at face value if there was an interpretation of events that allowed it.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> different points of view about Kerry's Vietnam record (ranging from hero
> to nearly a war criminal).

Yea, I wonder how many other opinions Kerry will have of his war record.
;-)

>> In Mr. Bush's case, has anybody else from his former AL unit stepped
>> forward to confirm the "sighting"?
>
>A few so far, and there have been minor discrepancies in their stories,
>which has been a major point of contention on his service record.

There is also his girlfriend, who seemed to remember him very well
indeed.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article >,
"John Keeney" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article et>,
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Michael Wise" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
> > > > something even approaching conclusive evidence?
> > >
> > > To the best of my knowledge, yes. Why wouldn't they?
> >
> > Because eyewitness testimony is not very reliable at all.
>
> When I've sat jury duty the instructions were to take all testimony
> at face value if there was an interpretation of events that allowed it.

That's nice, but the footnote to that is that most eyewitness testimony
is extremely easy to disallow.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nobody said anything about specifc dates.
>

You mentioned dates in your previous message.


>
> I think year and approximate
> month (or even season) would suffice. That coupled with the instances in
> which the person claims to have seen Mr. Bush.
>

That's been done.


>
> Tell me, why has nobody else in the unit come forward. I sure as well
> won't ever forget those I served with both on active duty and active
> reserves. Surely, more than one person can step forward.
>

Probably because as he was a non-flying pilot in a flying unit his assigned
duties did not require him to interact very much with other members of the
unit, who were directly involved in flying operations.


>
> Nobody is accusing the person claiming to have seen Mr. Bush multiple
> times of partnership. However, partisanship should be considered...when
> it's only one person coming forward (months after the fact).
>

Months after what fact?

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Well, from the point of view of the "Doonesbury" folks, it's because
> someone could have paid off the witness, or the witness could just plain
> be wrong about 30 year old memories.
>

Exactly. There will be no credible witness because anyone that puts Bush on
the base is not credible.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> But that's for short-term situations. Can you remember everyone you
> went to school with in high school? Can you even remember all of your
> *teachers*?
>
> Now, put yourself in the place of some old guy who was the rankingh
> officer at some NG base 30 years back, and consider how hard it would > be
to remember with any certainty if some young guy went through your > unit
for a few days over a couple of months.
>

But they weren't seeking one specific person to remember everyone in the
unit, they were seeking anyone from the unit to remember one specific
person.


>
> Political, monetary, or notoriety. For example.
>

Political gain? How so? Monetary gain? The witness doesn't receive the
reward, it's donated in his name to the USO. Notoriety? Why would anyone
wish to be known in an unfavorable light?

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> But they weren't seeking one specific person to remember everyone in the
> unit, they were seeking anyone from the unit to remember one specific
> person.

Can you remember all of the people *you* knew, 30 years back, even
casual acquaintances, in enough detail to specify dates?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Can you remember all of the people *you* knew, 30 years back, even
> casual acquaintances, in enough detail to specify dates?
>

Nope, but that's a different situation. No specific person was being asked
to confirm Bush's attendance at Dannelly on any specific date.

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Can you remember all of the people *you* knew, 30 years back, even
> > casual acquaintances, in enough detail to specify dates?
>
> Nope, but that's a different situation. No specific person was being asked
> to confirm Bush's attendance at Dannelly on any specific date.

So you're saying that, even though you can't do it, you expect one of
the dozen or so people who actually worked with Bush in that time period
to do better...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > But they weren't seeking one specific person to remember everyone in the
> > unit, they were seeking anyone from the unit to remember one specific
> > person.
>
> Can you remember all of the people *you* knew, 30 years back, even
> casual acquaintances, in enough detail to specify dates?

****, I some times try and think of the names of the eleven people
I worked with daily for three years 20 years ago and seldom make
it past four of them. I still remember their faces just fine though.

Looking at pictures of people I saw at school daily for 1-4 years
thirty years ago, well, I recognize most of them. I can remember the
names of a few and various conversations with most of those.
And I'm not talking about *everybody* at the school, just the ones
I associated with of my own accord.


I just got 4 1/2, now if I can just remember Mike's last name...

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> So you're saying that, even though you can't do it, you expect one
> of the dozen or so people who actually worked with Bush in that
> time period to do better...
>

Nope, I'm saying nothing remotely like that.