No winner yet in 'Doonesbury' Bush search

"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.

In article k.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

"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.

In article k.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

"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?

In article . net,
"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?

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article . net,
"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.

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.

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